At Thu, 14 Jul 2022 15:38:37 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote in
> At Thu, 14 Jul 2022 09:40:25 +0700, John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote in
> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 4:13 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > At Wed, 13 Jul 2022 18:09:43 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <
> > horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote in
> > > > So, "e.g." (for example) in the message sounds like "that is", which I
> > > > think is "i.e.". It should be fixed if this is correct. I'm not sure
> > > > whether to keep using Latin-origin acronyms like this, but in the
> > > > attached I used "i.e.".
> >
> > I did my own quick scan and found one use of i.e. that doesn't really fit,
> > in a sentence that has other grammatical issues:
> >
> > - Due to the differences how ECPG works compared to Informix's
> > ESQL/C (i.e., which steps
> > + Due to differences in how ECPG works compared to Informix's ESQL/C
> > (namely, which steps
> > are purely grammar transformations and which steps rely on the
>
> Oh!
>
> > I've pushed that in addition to your changes, thanks!
>
> Thanks!
By the way, I forgot about back-branches. Don't we need to fix the
same in back-branches?
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center