X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org;
	s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date:
	mime-version; bh=wqA4xetoMAfB3tBvdWzGNJqlwZUBCmMwBb69JvkkQSY=; b=mNQC/z4jqrVL
	N2i5hq626RVOQaAz+eeNQW2U8I4TZPVjrkDAUqUVfUEB9C0k0iOsmFqwue4S+aDu75TrN9kApJxvP
	xyhO3b40vTVvqJ3xfPVHQdQThG/9dThJ+OdPz/mZI5PmqGqUVMOxh1yFS6kW4LLiobVPMTsaQO+kK
	ZqfsDQJAZ3Y/PBrh1xgV4kYX4zQgQjz0ANb+RshTZ5v/D/5oEY3J0IOWGcMNyvJ1X24N3zskkQejE
	xruX+gaYKPkf8HwVSheXdM/dYPsj23PZl4QLTRCaRUcrCYd71Roh9nf9gKKX+6S8Ccb4/8WJiaHNF
	eIPS3g3jvjTtOUxFIgBDsA==;
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2024 15:10:06 +0200
Message-Id: <86jzmim9ch.fsf@gnu.org>
From: "Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
To: Pali <pali AT pali DOT im>
Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <20240227225119.vjk6fig7pepudlwc@pali> (message from Pali on Tue,
	27 Feb 2024 23:51:19 +0100)
Subject: Re: DJGPP documentation updates
References: <20240213210641 DOT 52jnxonf3zuc2qxw AT pali>
 <CAA2C=vA9F0qL8vAw+FA5AtVavsEZqJKY=UrMz8MbpQa1POqjLA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <86mss3xfu9 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
 <20240217155210 DOT cs5mqv3izh5jlvee AT pali>
 <86eddbt6e3 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
 <20240225124223 DOT qq46f2jz7hj3gduv AT pali>
 <86wmqswvmg DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <20240227225119 DOT vjk6fig7pepudlwc AT pali>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 23:51:19 +0100
> From: Pali <pali AT pali DOT im>
> Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
> 
> On Sunday 25 February 2024 14:56:07 Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Please specify function by their name alone, as in @code{sbrk},
> > without the parentheses.  "sbrk()" looks like a call to 'sbrk' with no
> > arguments, which is not what you mean here.  Same with references to
> > other functions in the patch.  (I realize that the fashion of
> > referencing functions by using the parentheses exists out there in
> > other projects, but we don't follow it here.)
> > 
> > Thanks.
> 
> It is the only issue in this change? If yes, would you trivially change
> it before applying?

Done, thanks.