On Monday 30 June 2008, Russ Allbery wrote: > Raphael Geissert <atomo64@gmail.com> 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 believe there are more chances of false positives on other checks other than this one because of English spelling :) > > >> 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? cat <<FOO the the Kiten Japanese reference and study aid. Portions of this library, FOO Around line 83 lintian chomps $_, so if \s is used it would never match the above quoted line (which belongs to the libkiten4 package). > > I'm worried about blah-foo foo-baz sorts of cases, although I don't have a > specific example in mind. Cheers, -- Atomo64 - Raphael Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.