-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35611/#review89362
-----------------------------------------------------------



3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/flags/flags.hpp (line 71)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35611/#comment141932>

    delete second "via"?



3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/flags/flags.hpp (line 88)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35611/#comment141936>

    Not sure what you mean with "possibly". 
    
    And "as well as"? There are no flags called PREFIX_foo and PREFIX_bar. They 
are simply foo and bar.
    
    Suggestion:
    
    "Thus the flags foo and bar can be loaded from environment variables 
PREFIX_foo and PREFIX_bar. Given the order of statements in this example, the 
values already assigned above when loading from the command line will be 
overwritten."



3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/flags/flags.hpp (line 89)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35611/#comment141934>

    typo: environment



3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/flags/flags.hpp (line 94)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35611/#comment141937>

    "header files"?
    
    Did you mean "descriptions of"?
    Maybe try this:
    
    @see load()



3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/flags/flags.hpp (line 117)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35611/#comment141939>

    Not your bug, but this is not a grammatically correct sentence. Suggestion:
    
    Load any flags from the environment using the variable prefix. For example, 
given prefix 'STOUT_' this method will load a flag named 'foo' via the 
environment variable 'STOUT_foo'.



3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/flags/flags.hpp (line 119)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35611/#comment141940>

    The latter variable should not be looked at, only the former. Env vars are 
case sensitive, are they not? Or if Mesos looks at both, then which one wins?



3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/flags/flags.hpp (line 135)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35611/#comment141942>

    Can't parse this sentence. Unclear grouping of phrases separated by 
conjunctions. How about:
    
    If false return an Error once an unknown flag is encountered.
    
    <see also the other overloads>



3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/flags/flags.hpp (line 137)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35611/#comment141941>

    typo: duplicates
    
    <see also the other overloads>



3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/flags/flags.hpp (line 138)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35611/#comment141943>

    Suggestion:
    
    If false return an Error once a duplicate flag is encountered.
    
    <see also the other overloads>



3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/flags/flags.hpp (line 183)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35611/#comment141945>

    s/Values/Map
    
    <see also the other overloads>



3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/flags/flags.hpp (line 209)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35611/#comment141946>

    We cannot point to a non-API (non-doxygenized) item using '@see' (or even 
'see'). Better to explain right here what is going on.
    
    I know this is inherited text, but best to fix it now :-)



3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/flags/flags.hpp (line 228)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35611/#comment141949>

    s/The/The latter  
    
    ?



3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/flags/flags.hpp (line 229)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35611/#comment141948>

    Here, the reader will once again not understand what 'usageMessage_' is 
without looking at source code.



3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/flags/flags.hpp (line 264)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35611/#comment141951>

    s/Add's/Adds
    
    <and also in several places below>



3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/flags/flags.hpp (line 276)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35611/#comment141952>

    Simpler: "This function is expected to have the signature ..."
    
    <see also below>



3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/flags/flags.hpp (line 279)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35611/#comment141953>

    lambdas -> closures ?


- Bernd Mathiske


On June 20, 2015, 8:19 a.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35611/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 20, 2015, 8:19 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Bernd Mathiske.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> A follow up to https://reviews.apache.org/r/34943 as requested by most 
> reviewers.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/flags/flags.hpp 
> ee855da6128c2d671eb2fc7eaa2c0aab2341aebb 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35611/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check and generated doxygen documentation.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Hindman
> 
>

Reply via email to