55114Re: PATCH porting.pod "First Mystery"
- Oct 24, 2003(sorry Brian, this was supposed to go to the list... is there any plan
to fix the reply-to header on this list?)
Brian McCauley wrote:
> Stas Bekman <stas@...> writes:I know, as a newbie to the list, I probably won't have much sway in
>>> ... I'd keep the "for which"
>>>even if some people consider such strict English grammar to be
>>I guess it reads better if using commas:
>>The easiest and the fastest way to solve the nested subroutines
>>problem is to switch every lexically scoped variable, you get the
>>warning for, to a global package variable.
> OK, I still find the strict English grammar easier to read in this
> instance, but I'll go with your form.
this, but I have to agree with Brian. I read the version above -- the
one with commas -- and it just isn't working for me. My brain just won't
parse that as correct English (or even Englilsh). If I remember my
grammar correctly, you only use commas to set of a descriptive phrase
when it's a noun clause (such as "my friend's cousin", "the big red one
over there", etc.). Prepositional phrases should flow inline with the
noun being described. That's why there're no commas. It becomes, "every
lexically scoped variable you get the error for," if you're not going to
mind the misuse of the preposition. I'd be fine with that under most
circumstances, but the following context makes it weird, which was
probably Brian's original point. Switching to correct use of the
preposition, "for which", fixes that. "...switch every lexically scoped
variable for which you get the warning to a..."
It's not affected -- it's correct. We American's sometimes think of
correct grammar as affected (myself included), but sometimes it's
correct anyways and it actually makes things easier to understand.
Ok, enough of my english rant, flame on :)
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>