Skip to content
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

Avoid 'allows to' #2685

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Oct 12, 2020
Merged

Avoid 'allows to' #2685

merged 3 commits into from Oct 12, 2020

Conversation

HansOlsson
Copy link
Collaborator

Closes #2380

Copy link
Collaborator

@svorkoetter svorkoetter left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good. The old wording looked rather awkward.

Copy link
Collaborator

@henrikt-ma henrikt-ma left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am fine with this if lets one is not a newly introduced phrase. Marking as Request changes, but what I am really requesting is just that we think this through.

@@ -1265,7 +1265,7 @@ \subsection{Contributors to the Modelica Language, Version 3.2}\label{contributo
and demonstrated its use on a vehicle dynamics example. Utilizing the
prototype implementation, Francesco Casella demonstrated with a model of
a thermal power plant with 390 iteration variables of the initialization
problem, that an appropriate usage of the homotopy operator allows to
problem, that an appropriate usage of the homotopy operator lets one
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't recognize us using one in this way. If that's correct, maybe we shouldn't start doing it now? For instance, why not this?

problem, that an appropriate usage of the homotopy operator allows the system to be initialized reliably without…

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, that makes sense - I have changed that now. It was only done in the revisions chapter.

Copy link
Collaborator

@henrikt-ma henrikt-ma left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Requesting change, as I think it was unintentional to leave one occurrence of lets one.

@@ -804,7 +804,7 @@ \subsubsection{spatialDistribution}\label{spatialdistribution}
solver.
\end{nonnormative}

\lstinline!spatialDistribution! allows to approximate efficiently the solution of the infinite-dimensional problem
\lstinline!spatialDistribution! lets one approximate efficiently the solution of the infinite-dimensional problem
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I suppose this one was forgotten in the last commit? Maybe this could work:

Suggested change
\lstinline!spatialDistribution! lets one approximate efficiently the solution of the infinite-dimensional problem
\lstinline!spatialDistribution! allows efficient approximate solution of the infinite-dimensional problem

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It was missed, but I don't think that is the best option. I changed it more completely.

Copy link
Collaborator

@henrikt-ma henrikt-ma left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good now. Just leaving a comment that can be ignored.

@@ -804,7 +804,7 @@ \subsubsection{spatialDistribution}\label{spatialdistribution}
solver.
\end{nonnormative}

\lstinline!spatialDistribution! lets one approximate efficiently the solution of the infinite-dimensional problem
\lstinline!spatialDistribution! allows the infinite-dimensional problem below to be solved efficiently with good accuracy
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not bad at all. How about some punctuation (like a period or a colon) at the end, before the equation?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm... I will have to think more about which punctuation is best, so take that later.

@HansOlsson HansOlsson merged commit d3aadcc into modelica:master Oct 12, 2020
@HansOlsson HansOlsson deleted the Allows branch February 26, 2021 13:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Removing "allows to" - tweet by Terrence Parr
3 participants