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 10:33:06 -0700 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1186508064 22821 80.91.229.12 (7 Aug 2007 17:34:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 17:34:24 +0000 (UTC) To: Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 07 19:34:22 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 1IISwl-0006ov-OI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:34:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IISwg-0006NF-Te for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:34:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IISwe-0006NA-7Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:34:12 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IISwY-0006Mx-Kk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:34:10 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IISwY-0006Mu-Ef for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:34:06 -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 1IISwV-0008AE-Rd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:34:05 -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 l77HXl5E004669 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:33:47 -0500 Original-Received: from acsmt351.oracle.com (acsmt351.oracle.com [141.146.40.151]) by agmgw2.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.0/Switch-3.2.0) with ESMTP id l77BeAUA028922 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:33:47 -0600 Original-Received: from dhcp-amer-csvpn-gw1-141-144-64-108.vpn.oracle.com by acsmt351.oracle.com with ESMTP id 3102699481186507990; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:33:10 -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: 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:76150 Archived-At: > I think a better approach is to keep using `iff' (also known as `ssi' in > French), but to make it such that the user can click on it to get to the > Glossary where we add an entry for it. > We could later on use the same feature for some other terms (e.g. > "fringe"). I agree. It is better to avoid varying the terminology for things like this - using different terms for the same thing in different places (e.g. by different authors). It is best to use a term such as "iff" consistently, and define it clearly. The meaning of "if" can vary in informal English, and different people sometimes understand it differently. In more formal use, these are often used as synonyms: "A implies B", "if A then B", "A only if B", "B if A", "B whenever A", and "B provided A". And these are used as synonyms: "A if and only if B", and "A is equivalent to B". The problem with using "iff" is that some readers will not notice that it is not "if", or they might think that it is a typo. If we use "iff" as Stefan suggested, then it is important that users have a _visual_ clue that this is a glossary term and that they can click it to see its definition. That visual clue would be enough to signal that this is not just "if" or a typo. Until we have such a glossary-term indicator, we should use "if and only if" (or we could temporarily take the risk of misunderstanding and use "iff"). It is not appropriate for us to use "if" (or "only if") in place of "iff", when the meaning of the latter is important to the context. This is so, in spite of the fact that, as Jason pointed out, many readers assume bidirectionality for "if"; that is, they do not distinguish "if" from "if and only if". In some cases, of course, the "if" direction is of primary importance, and the "only if" case can be ignored or glossed over in the doc. That is, when it makes little difference whether readers confuse "if" with "iff", we could get away with using just "if". Still, in general it is better to clearly state what happens in each case or, if they are equivalent, to use "iff" (or "if and only if"). Because careful use of such terms can result in language that is more like a spec than doc, it is sometimes helpful and appropriate to use both a short, introductory, informal, easy-to-read description and a more rigorous, detailed explanation. Those who are interested will take the time to parse the latter, and the others will generally understand enough to get the job done.