From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jason Rumney Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: typo in accept-process-output (process.c) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:31:21 +0100 Message-ID: <46B85809.8060009@gnu.org> References: <87ejiinq6b.fsf@debby.local.net> <85643u8955.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87vebsidzu.fsf@hariken.mwolson.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1186486360 2441 80.91.229.12 (7 Aug 2007 11:32:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:32:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Michael Olson Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 07 13:32:37 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IINIg-0002UO-ET for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:32:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IINIb-00054J-FE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:32:29 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IINIX-00053j-SK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:32:25 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IINIT-00053P-BF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:32:25 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IINIT-00053M-5e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:32:21 -0400 Original-Received: from outmail1.freedom2surf.net ([194.106.33.237]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IINI0-0006mn-7c; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:31:52 -0400 Original-Received: from [127.0.0.1] (i-83-67-23-108.freedom2surf.net [83.67.23.108]) by outmail1.freedom2surf.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B6CE50329; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:31:39 +0100 (BST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) In-Reply-To: <87vebsidzu.fsf@hariken.mwolson.org> X-Detected-Kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:76140 Archived-At: Michael Olson wrote: > The conditionals "only if" and "if" are both unidirectional, whereas "if > and only if" is bidirectional. If you want to preserve the logic, it is > best to change "iff" to "if and only if". It's not nearly as gross as > changing the meaning would be. > I think the logic can be preserved by changing iff to "if", and for any instances of "if" that do not mean "iff", there should be some wording like "... may be ... if ... " to indicate that there is not a bidirectional correspondence. In general, bidirectionality is assumed by most speakers of English (as opposed to mathematical logic) for a bare "if".