On Sat, 02 Sep 2023 18:50:15 +0000 Eric Wong wrote: > Štěpán Němec <[email protected]> wrote: >> -Numerous optional modules are likely to be useful as well: >> +Numerous other modules are likely to be useful as well: > > What is the reasoning for this change? > "optional" is an important point to state, IMHO. > Using "other" is more ambiguous, I think.
We've now established that at least Inline::C is not optional on all systems. Is that really the only case? (I mean, some of the modules have "optional" again in their respective parentheticals: is that just redundancy, or does it imply that the others are less optional?) Even if it _is_ the only case, isn't saying "optional" misleading? >> @@ -76,8 +76,9 @@ Numerous optional modules are likely to be useful as well: >> - Inline::C deb: libinline-c-perl >> pkg: p5-Inline-C >> rpm: perl-Inline (or perl-Inline-C) >> - (speeds up process spawning on Linux, >> - see public-inbox-daemon(8)) >> + (required for lei on *BSD; speeds up >> process >> + spawning on Linux, see >> + public-inbox-daemon(8)) > > I think breaking up the lines on punctuation improves readability: > > (required for lei on *BSD; > speeds up process spawning on Linux, > see public-inbox-daemon(8)) That's much better, thank you! > I particularly dislike having "process" and "spawning" > being on separate lines. Yeah, it's horrible, but somehow your sane version didn't occur to me... Thanks, Štěpán
