Possible doc typos, inconsistencies, etc

Hi everyone. First, english isn’t my first language(not even second) so excuse me if these are just false positives. You can find theses issues(?) by searching them in the pdf doc of Julia 1.4.

  1. Binomial coeffient (should be coefficient)
  2. builtin and built-in (are they both correct?)
  3. runtime and run-time (same with builtin)
  4. " as as " (double as, not familiar with this so not sure)
  5. " the the " (like 4)
  6. " a a " (like 4)
  7. " in in " (like 4)
  8. debuginfo (in code_lowered doc, not styled like its friends)
  9. offline doc doesn’t search (not working in mine)
  10. " be be " (like 4)
  11. " not not " (like 4)
  12. " with with " (like 4)
2 Likes

Please consider making a pull request with the corrections. You can do so directly using the web interface of Github. See the file locations here:

There are quite a few reasons why it’s better for other people to do that. I won’t elaborate. But I’d be glad if someone volunteered to correct(?} those asap.

Frankly, while it is nice to fix things like this, I am not sure it is reasonable to suggest that they are done “asap”.

It is a nice task for someone who just wants to get started with PRs though. The concern is that unless an issue is opened, it will be forgotten — at least consider opening an issue (offline code search is probably a separate one that should be investigated).

I didn’t suggest that they get fixed asap. What I meant is I have no problem and I’m very willing if someone went and made a PR even without saying anything here. I won’t find that rude at all. As for why I’m not making a PR, one reason is I’m using other’s internet connection. I can go offline anytime and I’m not sure when I’ll be online again. I’m also doing other things. I’m just trying to help by pointing the problem. If no one bothered to fix, that’s beyond me. I want to make a PR but I’m tied by other things.

Note:
I’m reading the contributing page. Maybe I’ll fix these myself but no promises. Like I said I’m not sure until when will I be online. Is there a video about contributing? The instructions seem easy but I’m more comfortable with hands on demo.

It seems that the “contributing” page has a typo.

When making changes to any of Julia’s documentation it is recommended that you run make docs to check the your changes are valid and do not produce any errors before opening a pull request.

Not sure but maybe “to check the your changes” should be “to check that your changes”.

The contents of doc/_build/ does not need to be committed when you make changes.

Shouldn’t it be “do not” instead of "does not?

Most of the source text for the Julia Manual is located in doc/src/.

Not sure but how about “Most of the source texts for the Julia Manual are located…”?

Good fixes. (I think the “source text” phrase is OK as is, but the rest seem fine.)

Everyone’s in the same boat with way too many other things to do. It’s great that you pointed out these issues, but consider what you win if you also contribute the fixes: you (largely) free up someone who is most likely already donating her/his time to make other improvements to Julia. The things that person works on may be more complex than you’d be willing to contemplate, and you’ll surely benefit from some of those changes in the long run. So by contributing a bit of your effort, you get good stuff faster.

5 Likes

I think “contents” is a mass noun, i.e. speaking of all those words as if they were something smooth and continuous like water. Likewise “source text”.

But for small changes you may ignore the discussion of how to build the documents, and just blindly submit a PR (through the website) without testing locally. The build robots do not have strong opinions on English grammar just yet.

1 Like

I made a PR. But I didn’t know what to do with runtime/run-time and builtin/built-in. The " as as " issue isn’t present in the current master. It’s in 1.4 (and maybe earlier versions.).

6 Likes

For the record, here’s the link: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/35413

1 Like