svn commit: r211936 - in head: bin/test lib/libc/net lib/libc/stdio lib/libc/stdlib lib/libc/sys lib/libipx libexec/ypxfr sbin/ipfw secure/lib/libcrypto/man share/man/man4 share/man/man9 usr.sbin/I...

[Bruce Cran]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 12:12:46 +1000 (EST)
Bruce Evans <brde at optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010, Bruce Cran wrote:
> 
> > Log:
> >  Fix incorrect usage of 'assure' and 'insure'.
> 
> I think some of the `assure's are more correct than their replacement
> of `ensure'.  The difference is subtle -- my small 1960's English
> dictionary starts by saying that both mean "make safe"; it gives
> the meaning "make certain to happen" only for `ensure', and this is
> usually the meaning that we want, but I read `assure' as saying a
> little more -- that we have done the ensuring and that clients cant
> trust us to have done it.
> 
> At least in old drafts, both POSIX and C99 use both `assure' and
> `ensure', but never `insure'.  C99 only has 3 `assure's so it is
> easier to analyze.  I think 1 or 2 of them would be better as
> `ensure'.  But C99 also uses `assuredly'.  It would be strange if an
> assurance or satisfaction of an `assuredly' could not be done by
> `assure'ing it.

After talking with other people I can see that quite a few probably
were correct - for example "assure a degree of consistency".

Should all the assure -> ensure changes be reverted?

-- 
Bruce Cran