From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/38798 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Russ Allbery Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Backend is not a word Date: 17 Sep 2001 15:30:08 -0700 Organization: The Eyrie Message-ID: References: <2n3d5lldop.fsf@piglet.jia.vnet> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035174605 24406 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 04:30:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 04:30:05 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 21351 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2001 22:30:16 -0000 Original-Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (171.64.13.23) by gnus.org with SMTP; 17 Sep 2001 22:30:16 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 19293 invoked by uid 50); 17 Sep 2001 22:30:09 -0000 Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: prj@po.cwru.edu's message of "Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:34:31 -0400" User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands) Original-Lines: 14 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:38798 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:38798 Paul Jarc writes: > ShengHuo ZHU wrote: >> while "back-end" is found in FOLDOC. What should we write? Opinions? > Any of them would be equally clear, I think. Is "backend" any more > awkward than the others? I believe the gcc folks just standardized on one of these, but I forget which one (either back end or back-end). Probably should just use the same one they used. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)