From dc107b78509807db375d3a382eb3376cd2183357 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 22:19:17 -0400 Subject: More cleanup of "allow to". * README, agent/command.c, agent/keyformat.txt, common/i18n.c, common/iobuf.c, common/keyserver.h, dirmngr/cdblib.c, dirmngr/ldap-wrapper.c, doc/DETAILS, doc/TRANSLATE, doc/announce-2.1.txt, doc/gpg.texi, doc/gpgsm.texi, doc/scdaemon.texi, doc/tools.texi, doc/whats-new-in-2.1.txt, g10/export.c, g10/getkey.c, g10/import.c, g10/keyedit.c, m4/ksba.m4, m4/libgcrypt.m4, m4/ntbtls.m4, po/ca.po, po/cs.po, po/da.po, po/de.po, po/el.po, po/eo.po, po/es.po, po/et.po, po/fi.po, po/fr.po, po/gl.po, po/hu.po, po/id.po, po/it.po, po/ja.po, po/nb.po, po/pl.po, po/pt.po, po/ro.po, po/ru.po, po/sk.po, po/sv.po, po/tr.po, po/uk.po, po/zh_CN.po, po/zh_TW.po, scd/app-p15.c, scd/ccid-driver.c, scd/command.c, sm/gpgsm.c, sm/sign.c, tools/gpgconf-comp.c, tools/gpgtar.h: replace "Allow to" with clearer text. In standard English, the normal construction is "${XXX} allows ${YYY} to" -- that is, the subject (${XXX}) of the sentence is allowing the object (${YYY}) to do something. When the object is missing, the phrasing sounds awkward, even if the object is implied by context. There's almost always a better construction that isn't as awkward. These changes should make the language a bit clearer. Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor --- common/iobuf.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'common/iobuf.c') diff --git a/common/iobuf.c b/common/iobuf.c index 9d582ca20..06d0b6144 100644 --- a/common/iobuf.c +++ b/common/iobuf.c @@ -1198,7 +1198,7 @@ iobuf_cancel (iobuf_t a) #if defined(HAVE_W32_SYSTEM) || defined(__riscos__) if (remove_name) { - /* Argg, MSDOS does not allow to remove open files. So + /* Argg, MSDOS does not allow removing open files. So * we have to do it here */ #ifdef HAVE_W32CE_SYSTEM wchar_t *wtmp = utf8_to_wchar (remove_name); -- cgit v1.2.3