-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.2k
Fix usage of "e.g." and "etc." #19186
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
best_practices.rst
Outdated
@@ -238,7 +238,7 @@ Use Dependency Injection to Get Services | |||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |||
|
|||
If you extend the base ``AbstractController``, you can only get access to the most | |||
common services (e.g ``twig``, ``router``, ``doctrine``, etc.), directly from the | |||
common services (e.g. ``twig``, ``router``, ``doctrine``), directly from the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this should become
common services (e.g. ``twig``, ``router``, ``doctrine``), directly from the | |
common services (e.g. ``twig``, ``router`` and ``doctrine``), directly from the |
same for all other changes where you removed "etc" on lists following "e.g."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Even with two examples?
A: (e.g. twig, router)
B: (e.g. twig and router)
C: (e.g. twig or router)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I think so.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To be honest I'm in doubt what to do @wouterj
There are a lot of places where (e.g. "example_a", "example_b")
is used (before my modifications i mean)..
Should i change those too ? Or maybe, on the contrary, could we set the following rule:
a set of single terms (values, code identifier, methods, etc.) can be listed without "and", to avoid any sense of relation
We also could say
we'd rather handle this on a case-per-case basis, so let's stop there for now
and i'll drop the commit "e.g. and etc. used together"
WDYT ?
@@ -238,7 +238,7 @@ Use Dependency Injection to Get Services | |||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |||
|
|||
If you extend the base ``AbstractController``, you can only get access to the most | |||
common services (e.g ``twig``, ``router``, ``doctrine``, etc.), directly from the | |||
common services (e.g. ``twig``, ``router`` and ``doctrine``), directly from the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd say this change is wrong because the AbstractConroller gives you access to lots of services ... and not only those 3. See:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd keep most of the etc.
usages removed in this PR. Without the etc.
, the text is "wrong" now (because in most cases we have many more items than the one listed explicitly).
It was the reason of this PR. The "e.g." and "etc" mean the same thing. They introduce (or "outroduce" for etc) a non-exhaustive list. My personal preference would be to use etc and replace e.g / i.e. with simpler terms: "such as"; "like" ... Originally the goal of this PR was to make some quick corrections / fixes, but if that means losing some readability and/or losing time to anyone here clearly let's close it's not worth this energy :) |
Thanks for proposing, let's keep it this way 👌🏻😎 |
Dears doc maintainers 💐 , if you don't have time for this one or don't want to fix typographic details... i'll understand :)