Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove references to gender #262

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 26, 2019
Merged

Conversation

drewnoakes
Copy link
Member

This PR:

  • removes assumptions of gender where it is unknown or irrelevant
  • recognises non-binary gender

In many instances this is achieved through the use of the singular they pronoun and related forms.

Copy link
Contributor

@scalablecory scalablecory left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me. Thanks for the PR. I wonder if dotnet/dotnet-api-docs could use a similar treatment.

@ViktorHofer
Copy link
Member

Thanks a lot Drew

@ViktorHofer ViktorHofer merged commit 1289438 into dotnet:master Nov 26, 2019
@@ -975,7 +975,7 @@ In typical managed app scenarios, services like WszCreateEvent are thin wrappers

If you need to coordinate with unmanaged code, or if you need to do WaitForMultipleHandles ANY/ALL, you will have to avoid WszCreateEvent. If you really know what you are doing, go directly to the OS to obtain these handles. Everyone else should seek advice from someone who thoroughly understands the implications to our host. Obviously the general rule is that everyone should go through our hosted abstraction.

Sometimes you might find yourself building the equivalent of a critical section, but using an event directly. The problem here is that we cannot identify the thread that owns the lock, because the owner isn't identified until he "leaves'" the lock by calling SetEvent or Pulse. Consider whether a Crst might be more appropriate.
Sometimes you might find yourself building the equivalent of a critical section, but using an event directly. The problem here is that we cannot identify the thread that owns the lock, because the owner isn't identified until they "leave'" the lock by calling SetEvent or Pulse. Consider whether a Crst might be more appropriate.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
Sometimes you might find yourself building the equivalent of a critical section, but using an event directly. The problem here is that we cannot identify the thread that owns the lock, because the owner isn't identified until they "leave'" the lock by calling SetEvent or Pulse. Consider whether a Crst might be more appropriate.
Sometimes you might find yourself building the equivalent of a critical section, but using an event directly. The problem here is that we cannot identify the thread that owns the lock, because the owner isn't identified until they "leave" the lock by calling SetEvent or Pulse. Consider whether a Crst might be more appropriate.

@@ -741,8 +741,8 @@ HRESULT CordbStackWalk::GetFrameWorker(ICorDebugFrame ** ppFrame)
_ASSERTE(pCode != NULL);

// We populate the code for ReJit eagerly to make sure we still have it if the profiler removes the
// instrumentation later. Of course the only way it will still be accessible to our caller is if he
// saves a pointer to the ILCode.
// instrumentation later. Of course the only way it will still be accessible to our caller is if they
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
// instrumentation later. Of course the only way it will still be accessible to our caller is if they
// instrumentation later. Of course the only way it will still be accessible to our caller is if it

// instrumentation later. Of course the only way it will still be accessible to our caller is if he
// saves a pointer to the ILCode.
// instrumentation later. Of course the only way it will still be accessible to our caller is if they
// save a pointer to the ILCode.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
// save a pointer to the ILCode.
// saves a pointer to the ILCode.

** setting the flag, when we're almost absolutely sure, we'll
** give him one, since the only thing we can shift on this
** give them one, since the only thing we can shift on this
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
** give them one, since the only thing we can shift on this
** give it one, since the only thing we can shift on this

@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
//
// The fundamental rule of the hierarchy that threads can only request
// a crst whose level is lower than any crst currently held by the thread.
// E.g. if a thread current holds a level-3 crst, he can try to enter
// E.g. if a thread current holds a level-3 crst, it can try to enter
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
// E.g. if a thread current holds a level-3 crst, it can try to enter
// E.g. if a thread currently holds a level-3 crst, it can try to enter

@@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ BOOL LoadedMethodDescIterator::Next(
#ifndef DACCESS_COMPILE
_ASSERTE_MSG(
*pDomainAssemblyHolder == dbg_m_pDomainAssembly,
"Caller probably modified the assembly holder, which he shouldn't - see method comment.");
"Caller probably modified the assembly holder, which they shouldn't - see method comment.");
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
"Caller probably modified the assembly holder, which they shouldn't - see method comment.");
"Caller probably modified the assembly holder, which it shouldn't - see method comment.");

@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ public enum eReasonForUnload


/// <summary>
/// The LoaderClass is how we communicate with other app domains. He has to do 3 important things: 1) Load assemblies into the
/// The LoaderClass is how we communicate with other app domains. It has to do 3 important things: 1) Load assemblies into the
/// remote app domain (via Load/LoadFrom), 2) get back an object which represents the test (this is either an I...RelibilityTest or
/// a string indicating the assembly to run) (via GetTest), and 3) verify that our app domain is still running & healthy (via StillAlive)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
/// a string indicating the assembly to run) (via GetTest), and 3) verify that our app domain is still running & healthy (via StillAlive)
/// a string indicating the assembly to run) (via GetTest), and 3) verify that our app domain is still running and healthy (via StillAlive)

@@ -657,7 +657,7 @@ public void Expression_IIF()
val = (int)dr[0] > 3 ? 1 : 2;
Assert.Equal(val, dr["computedCol"]);
}
//Now reset the expression and check that the column got his deafult value
//Now reset the expression and check that the column got its deafult value
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
//Now reset the expression and check that the column got its deafult value
// Now reset the expression and check that the column got its default value

@@ -794,7 +794,7 @@ public static void ODEWhenDisposingLinkedCTS()
// Component A creates a linked token source representing the CT from the user and the "timeout" CT.
var linkedTokenSource = CancellationTokenSource.CreateLinkedTokenSource(cts2Token, userToken);

// User calls Cancel() on his CTS and then Dispose()
// User calls Cancel() on their CTS and then Dispose()
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
// User calls Cancel() on their CTS and then Dispose()
// User calls Cancel() and then Dispose() on the CTS

MichalStrehovsky pushed a commit to MichalStrehovsky/runtime that referenced this pull request Nov 4, 2020
@ghost ghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Dec 11, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants