config.md: Sentence modification #629
Conversation
config.md
Outdated
| @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ Defining `|` as a binary application operator, the root filesystem may be `A|B|C | |||
| While it is implied that `C` is only useful when applied to `A|B`, the identifier `C` is insufficient to identify this result, as we'd have the equality `C = A|B|C`, which isn't true. | |||
|
|
|||
| The main issue is when we have two definitions of `C`, `C = C` and `C = A|B|C`. | |||
| If this is true (with some handwaving), `C = x|C` where `x = any application` must be true. | |||
| If this is true (with some handwaving), `C = x|C` where `x = any application` MUST be true. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is not a compliance-requirement, so I don't think we need MUST. It's intended to be a mathematical assertion, which has no compliance impact (i.e. there will be no certification testing to check this). Perhaps we should rephrase the sentence to avoid “must”? Maybe:
If this is true (with some handwaving), then
C = x|Cis true wherex = any application.
That would be the narrow fix, although I'm still partial to #593 as a broader simplification.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just is also true would work here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO combine the two:
If this is true (with some handwaving), then C = x|C is true where x = any application.
|
This isn't a binding specification statement. |
Signed-off-by: zhouhao <[email protected]>
zhouhao3
force-pushed
the
fix-config-must
branch
from
254abed to
be4de03
Compare
zhouhao3
changed the title
|
LGTM |
1 similar comment
|
LGTM |
Signed-off-by: zhouhao [email protected]