Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Monday 30 June 2008, you wrote:
>> Unless someone objects, I'm inclined to make this info-level instead of >> a warning, since there are valid English constructs where this is a >> false positive and it's a fairly minor bug. > What kind of English constructs use duplicated words and are likely to > appear on a package description? I believe there are none (but I'm > always open to other opinions :) I've written valid sentences before containing "that that" and without obvious rephrasings, although alas I don't have an example at hand. And of course there's the famous saying "there's no there there," but that probably isn't going to occur in a package description. :) >> I think also requiring \s instead of \W on either end of the repeated >> words would be safer; that way we wouldn't warn on "foo foo", and the >> general rule of thumb I've been applying with description checks is >> that if they're quoting it, it's probably intentional. > If that's the case, please refer to attached patch (applies over the > previous one). That's possibly also a good idea, but I think \s is still better than \W. Was there a use-case that you had for using \W over \s? I'm worried about blah-foo foo-baz sorts of cases, although I don't have a specific example in mind. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
