From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Remove trademark acknowledgements.
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 12:15:17 +0200
Message-ID: <871t1fzt8q.fsf@elephly.net>
References: <1471890295-25249-1-git-send-email-jmd@gnu.org>
	<20160822182821.GA25307@jocasta.intra> <87k2f8zi35.fsf@elephly.net>
	<20160823021114.29aab55a@openmailbox.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40414)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1bc8jz-0006TQ-MS
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 06:15:35 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1bc8jx-0004J3-O4
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 06:15:30 -0400
In-reply-to: <20160823021114.29aab55a@openmailbox.org>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Eric Bavier <ericbavier@openmailbox.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, John Darrington <jmd@gnu.org>


Eric Bavier <ericbavier@openmailbox.org> writes:

> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:03:58 +0200
> Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:
>
>> John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au> writes:
>> 
>> > These somehow crept in, but are an explicit violation of GNU policy and
>> > coding standards.  
>> 
>> Good catch!  Thanks for fixing this.
>> 
>> ~~ Ricardo
>
> How about the attached patch to catch such things earlier?

I like it.  Thanks, Eric!

Not sure if we should use “for-each” here (going through the string
once for each character) or if we could just go through the string once,
checking for any character match.

Also, should we replace “sign” with “character”?

~~ Ricardo