From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: typo in accept-process-output (process.c) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 16:16:51 -0700 Message-ID: References: <46B8EF72.4090903@gmail.com> 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 1186528750 24817 80.91.229.12 (7 Aug 2007 23:19:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 23:19:10 +0000 (UTC) To: Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 08 01:19:08 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 1IIYKR-0001H3-MZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Aug 2007 01:19:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIYKR-0004Fi-3C for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:19:07 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IIYKJ-00047I-6q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:18:59 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IIYKH-00044P-24 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:18:58 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIYKG-00044F-UJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:18:56 -0400 Original-Received: from agminet01.oracle.com ([141.146.126.228]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IIYKG-0005NE-DL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:18:56 -0400 Original-Received: from agmgw2.us.oracle.com (agmgw2.us.oracle.com [152.68.180.213]) by agminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id l77NIrtu005539 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 18:18:54 -0500 Original-Received: from acsmt350.oracle.com (acsmt350.oracle.com [141.146.40.150]) by agmgw2.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.0/Switch-3.2.0) with ESMTP id l77KqcM7005114 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 17:18:53 -0600 Original-Received: from 141.144.81.255 by acsmt350.oracle.com with ESMTP id 3103913941186528616; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:16:56 -0700 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <46B8EF72.4090903@gmail.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE 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:76168 Archived-At: > Just a thought: Is there any other (non-math and non-logical) software > that uses iff in the documentation? Of course. (Some of the results of googling `iff software documentation' are examples.) Also, the Emacs user community includes mostly developers so far, and many of them produce software, specs, and documentation that are aimed at other developers. My guess is that many (most?) Emacs users will already be familiar with "iff", but I could be wrong about that. On the other hand, I see no special reason to use "iff" when "if and only if" can be used instead. It could argued that "iff" can be handy for the first line of a doc string, where space is at a premium, but in most cases such rigor is not needed in that first line. And of course there is no hyperlinked glossary for doc strings (either). Overall, I'd say we don't need to use "iff". In any case, we should not substitute "if" for "if and only if" in contexts where the distinction is important. If we had glossary links with visual cues, then it could be OK to use "iff", but I see no real reason not to always use "if and only if" instead. It can be OK to use just "if" informally, at first (say in a doc string first line), provided that the rest of the text tells the whole truth, and provided that doing so improves readability (e.g. by sounding less formal). Rules of thumb: 1. Use "if A then B" or "A implies B" for implication. These are generally clearer to readers than the equivalents "B if A" and "A only if B". 2. Use "if and only if" for logical equivalence, not "if". (Even though "A if B" and "A only if B" can confuse readers about the direction, there is no such problem when both directions are meant.)