[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Fix some typos in avfilter.h

[The Wanderer]

M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:

> The Wanderer <inverseparadox at comcast.net> writes:
> 
>> M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:

>>> ^^ "but the output will always be the same format as the input"
>> 
>> This doesn't seem grammatical to me given the context of the phrase
>> (and wouldn't really flow well even without that); the entire
>> section after the final occurrence of the noun "filter" is in
>> effect an adjective modifying that noun. I might paraphrase (not as
>> a suggestion for actual use!) as something like "This is often true
>> of a filter which, though it supports multiple formats, will always
>> produce output which is in the same format as its input".
> 
> I disagree.  The word "but" starts a new independent clause, the
> subject of which is "the output", implicitly understood to be that of
> the filter discussed in the previous clause.

I can see how you could interpret it that way, but it doesn't read that
way to me; I would read your suggested form as being equivalent to
"there may be references to the same list of formats, but the output
will always be the same format as the input" - i.e., the part delimited
by commas becomes marked as an aside which can be safely elided, which
is not what I believe is meant.

>>> "Also, a and b, and all references to either, will be
>>> deallocated"
>> 
>> "references to X" and "references of X" do not mean the same thing
>> - the former indicates things which refer to X, the latter I would
>> interpret as indicating things which are referred to by X.
> 
> Reading the original again, I can't quite figure out what it's trying
> to say.

Neither could I, which is why I didn't change the word.

>> Also, this suggested form has the too-many-commas effect, which the
>> form in the patch does not. That could be mostly fixed by dropping
>> the final comma, but the state introduced by doing so has other
>> problems which are harder to pin down.
> 
> Why are people so afraid of commas nowadays?  Commas help, not
> hinder, readability.

Often yes, but they can also harm what I usually call "flow", and in
some cases they can indeed hinder readability. I don't have a solid
explanation of why I think it's a problem in this case, but I do
maintain that one does exist.

Certainly it's possible to have extraneous (grammatically irrelevant and
potentially distracting or confusing) commas; for one example which
springs immediately to mind, there are probably at least two of them
(and certainly at least one) in the Second Amendment to the United
States Constitution.

-- 
       The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.