Fix documentation spelling error in rpc.erl #9890
Conversation
|
|
CT Test ResultsTests are running... https://github.com/erlang/otp/actions/runs/15327567983 Results for commit 7ee2aa1 To speed up review, make sure that you have read Contributing to Erlang/OTP and that all checks pass. See the TESTING and DEVELOPMENT HowTo guides for details about how to run test locally. Artifacts
// Erlang/OTP Github Action Bot |
| > performance than the original `rpc` implementation. However, since the | ||
| > introduction of `erpc`, the `rpc` module implements large parts of its central | ||
| > functionality using `erpc`, so the `rpc` module won't not suffer scalability | ||
| > functionality using `erpc`, so the `rpc` module won't suffer scalability | ||
| > wise and performance wise compared to `erpc`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this whole sentence should be rephrased, it sounds rather awkward. Especially the term "suffer" sounds wrong to me. IMO it would mean that the rpc module could potentially become worse in terms of scalability and/or performance because of the introduction of erpc (unless it did implement its functionality using erpc).
On a side note, I believe the correct use of "wise" in this context (meaning "in terms of") would be as a suffix, "scalabilitywise" and "performancewise" (which isn't too easy on the eye, either). When used as a single word or tacked on with a hyphen, the meaning of "wise" is "knowledgeable about" (as in "wisdom"). I may be wrong here, though, I'm not a linguist 😅
|
Thanks for your pull request. I agree with @Maria-12648430 that the entire sentence should be rephrased. I've opened #9948 to rephrase not only the sentence, but the entire note. |
No description provided.