From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: typo in accept-process-output (process.c) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:18:32 +0200 Message-ID: <86fy2v7fuf.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> References: <87ejiinq6b.fsf@debby.local.net> <85643u8955.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87vebsidzu.fsf@hariken.mwolson.org> <87wsw7y5ea.fsf@escher.local.home> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1186485560 32311 80.91.229.12 (7 Aug 2007 11:19:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:19:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stephen Berman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 07 13:19:18 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 1IIN5n-0006Ui-S4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:19:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIN5l-0001gQ-Ti for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:19:13 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IIN5j-0001fp-2L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:19:11 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IIN5d-0001fR-7Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:19:10 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIN5d-0001fO-26 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:19:05 -0400 Original-Received: from pc3.berlin.powerweb.de ([62.67.228.11]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IIN5a-00047Q-Vq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:19:04 -0400 Original-Received: from quinscape.de (dslnet.212-29-44.ip210.dokom.de [212.29.44.210] (may be forged)) by pc3.berlin.powerweb.de (8.9.3p3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA09230 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:18:29 +0200 X-Delivered-To: Original-Received: (qmail 16579 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2007 11:18:32 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO lola.quinscape.zz) ([10.0.3.43]) (envelope-sender ) by ns.quinscape.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 Aug 2007 11:18:32 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id A51CA8FA2F; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:18:32 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87wsw7y5ea.fsf@escher.local.home> (Stephen Berman's message of "Tue\, 07 Aug 2007 13\:02\:05 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) 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:76139 Archived-At: Stephen Berman writes: > On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:50:45 -0400 Michael Olson wrote: > >> Richard Stallman writes: >> >>> So the job only has to be done once, what replacement will people >>> be happy with? Personally, I think plain "if" would be just fine, >>> except perhaps to the tediously literal-minded. >>> >>> In some cases, just "if" is clear. >>> >>> Failing that, "only if". As a last resort, "if and only if" >>> (yuck). >>> >>> Where just "if" is not clear, you need to get creative. Find a >>> rewrite which is clear. "If and only if" is ok when you need it, but >>> since it is a bit longer, you might look for a better method. >> >> 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. > > The logic textbook by Kalish and Montague uses "`exactly on condition > that', and sometimes `just in case', as stylistic variants of `if and > only if'." "just in case" is pretty much the worst replacement since it has a well-established colloquial meaning of "as a precaution against the improbable event of". -- David Kastrup