Re: lintian: spelling

[Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org>]

Jerome BENOIT <sphericaltriangle@rezozer.net> writes:

> Before all, thanks for your constructive replies.
>
> On 21/10/16 21:34, Ben Finney wrote:
> > *Some* party is allowed to be stuck, but the current phrasing
> > doesn't say what; the description should be clear and say what that
> > party is.
>
> We are dealing here with a well known algorithm in the involved field.
> So the `party' is implicitly the algorithm. I have to confess that I am
> not familiar with this very algorithm. But the context let me think that
> it is a convergent algorithm and that the involved parameter is meant to
> control (numerical) convergence that goes out of control, what is a usual
> safeguard technique so to speak. 

This seems to be overthing the question far too much.

I'll state it simply again: Please fill in the “<UNKNOWN>” in the text:

    :param int max_no_dec: number of rounds we allow <UNKNOWN> to be stuck.

That will make the statement clearer, by removing an ambiguous unstated
party in the statement.

-- 
 \        “Members of the general public commonly find copyright rules |
  `\        implausible, and simply disbelieve them.” —Jessica Litman, |
_o__)                                              _Digital Copyright_ |
Ben Finney