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.

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

Wording: Use shorter possessive form for abstract object properties #565

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Feb 15, 2024

Conversation

inexorabletash
Copy link
Member

@inexorabletash inexorabletash commented Feb 14, 2024

As discussed in #555 (comment)

  • Old and busted: ... the [=property=] of |object| ...
  • New hotness: ... |object|'s [=property=] ...

While making this change (which was mostly automated) I noticed a handful of very intertwined glitches; I included fixes as separate commits in this PR, to avoid too many PRs. They are:

  • Correct a few cases of "rank of op's shape" to just "rank of op" (shapes have a size, operands have a rank)
  • Fix some duplicated words
  • Referencing descriptor properties, but directly against an operand.
  • A few case where the simplification in 8503e24 was missed.

I can split them out if desired.


Preview | Diff

inexorabletash and others added 6 commits February 13, 2024 15:37
MLOperands have a rank; the shape just has a size.
Old and busted: ... the [=property=] of |object| ...

New hotness: ... |object|'s [=property=] ...

Discussed in webmachinelearning#555 (comment)
I noticed "then then" in the previous commit and searched for similar
glitches to fix.
* Erroneously referencing descriptor properties, but directly against
  an operand. This can be fixed by using the shape and dataType
  shortcuts. (6 cases)

* Simplifications where an operand's shape shortcut could be used. (3
  cases)
Copy link
Collaborator

@fdwr fdwr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

✨🔥 Farewell "the the" and "as as".

@anssiko
Copy link
Member

anssiko commented Feb 15, 2024

@inexorabletash much thanks! Ready to merge when the conflicts have been resolved.

@inexorabletash
Copy link
Member Author

Resolved - @anssiko please double check and merge at your leisure!

@anssiko
Copy link
Member

anssiko commented Feb 15, 2024

Still looks as good as earlier and the build is 🟢 so... let's squash and merge!

@anssiko anssiko merged commit c4c369a into webmachinelearning:main Feb 15, 2024
2 checks passed
github-actions bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 15, 2024
…565)

SHA: c4c369a
Reason: push, by anssiko

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
@inexorabletash inexorabletash deleted the wording-possessive branch February 15, 2024 18:43
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants