From bc6e87572b33eb5d98cbb23522a71fd7d23931b7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jason Gross Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 08:51:59 -0400 Subject: Grammar: "allowing to" is not proper English I'm not quite sure why, but I'm pretty sure it's not. Rather, in "allowing for foo" and "allowing to foo", "foo" modifies the sense in which someting is allowed, rather than it being "foo" that's allowed. "Allowing fooing" generally works, though it can sound a bit awkward. "Allowing one to foo" (or "Allowing {him,her,it,Coq} to foo") is always acceptable, in-as-much as it's ok to use "one". I haven't touched the older instances of it in the CHANGES file. --- theories/FSets/FMapAVL.v | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'theories/FSets') diff --git a/theories/FSets/FMapAVL.v b/theories/FSets/FMapAVL.v index 9e8f44c0f..fa33c1bf4 100644 --- a/theories/FSets/FMapAVL.v +++ b/theories/FSets/FMapAVL.v @@ -370,7 +370,7 @@ Fixpoint map_option (elt elt' : Type)(f : key -> elt -> option elt')(m : t elt) (** * Optimized map2 Suggestion by B. Gregoire: a [map2] function with specialized - arguments allowing to bypass some tree traversal. Instead of one + arguments that allows bypassing some tree traversal. Instead of one [f0] of type [key -> option elt -> option elt' -> option elt''], we ask here for: - [f] which is a specialisation of [f0] when first option isn't [None] -- cgit v1.2.3