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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

[doc] Fix typo #3798

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
+1 −1
Closed

[doc] Fix typo #3798

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion CONTRIBUTING.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -12,4 +12,4 @@ Taichi is developed mainly in C++17 and Python3. Please check out the [Developer

Issues marked with ["welcome contribution"](https://github.com/taichi-dev/taichi/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22welcome+contribution%22) are great places for starters. You can quickly get an idea of the entire workflow and how to join the community.

**RFC**: We use the `RFC` (Request for Comments) mechanism to discuss and organize some of the more advanced and self-contained features. These are the projects that we would like to work on but still lack a concrete design or implementation roadmap for because of their complexity. We document these requests and the threaded proposals in the hope that we could provide the community with a good enough context and draw upon insights from the potentially passionate minds. You can find all the ongoing RFCs [here](https://github.com/taichi-dev/taichi/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3ARFC+), and you are also welcome to file new RFCs with us!
**RFC**: We use the `RFC` (Request for Comments) mechanism to discuss and organize some of the more advanced and self-contained features. These are the projects that we would like to work on but still lack a concrete design or implementation roadmap for their complexity. We document these requests and the threaded proposals in the hope that we could provide the community with a good enough context and draw upon insights from the potentially passionate minds. You can find all the ongoing RFCs [here](https://github.com/taichi-dev/taichi/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3ARFC+), and you are also welcome to file new RFCs with us!
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Choosing between "because of" and "for", I feel like "because of" is clearer here, given "for" has so many different meanings under different contexts. WDYT? @Vissidarte-Herman :-)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hahaha. Finally, I have a chance to prove you are misled!!!

"We still lack a concrete design or implementation roadmap for these projects.". The "for" here does not suggest a causal relationship.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oops. I originally suggested "These are the projects that we would like to work on but still lack a concrete design or implementation roadmap for because of their complexity."

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I see. Thanks for the clarification. Does it make sense to add a "," between "for" and "because of" then, for better clarity?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I see your concern. Adding a comma is not grammatical for "because of" and breaks down the logic flow (because it is part of the that- modifier).
How about:
"These are the projects that we would like to work on but still lack a decent design or implementation roadmap for (because of their complexity)."
This is the best from my end. WDYT?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"These are the projects that we would like to work on but still lack a decent design or implementation roadmap for (because of their complexity)."
This is the best from my end. WDYT?

Sounds great!

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
**RFC**: We use the `RFC` (Request for Comments) mechanism to discuss and organize some of the more advanced and self-contained features. These are the projects that we would like to work on but still lack a concrete design or implementation roadmap for their complexity. We document these requests and the threaded proposals in the hope that we could provide the community with a good enough context and draw upon insights from the potentially passionate minds. You can find all the ongoing RFCs [here](https://github.com/taichi-dev/taichi/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3ARFC+), and you are also welcome to file new RFCs with us!
**RFC**: We use the `RFC` (Request for Comments) mechanism to discuss and organize some of the more advanced and self-contained features. These are the projects that we would like to work on but still lack a decent design or implementation roadmap for (because of their complexity). We document these requests and the threaded proposals in the hope that we could provide the community with a good enough context and draw upon insights from the potentially passionate minds. You can find all the ongoing RFCs [here](https://github.com/taichi-dev/taichi/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3ARFC+), and you are also welcome to file new RFCs with us!

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What's "for" for? Lack? In that case how about "lack for a design or impl roadmap"?

Copy link
Contributor

@writinwaters writinwaters Dec 17, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm, nope.

  • The "for" I suggested is used to complete the that-modifying clause: It modifies the preceding noun phrase "a decent design or implementation roadmap". In other words, I think you want to say "we lack a decent design or implementation roadmap FOR these projects.
  • Although "lack for" is grammatically correct, it didn't solve the above issue (which is to complete the that-modifying clause).