| 1 |
Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> You have a point, as the term is used in regular English. However, the |
| 4 |
> term has a slightly different twist when used in reference to computers by |
| 5 |
> computer literate users. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Stop there. Of course you're not to know this, but I was working on computer |
| 8 |
hardware in 1972, and I've been working on, with, for, under, at, in spite |
| 9 |
of computers ever since. Well, I retired in 1998, but you see my point. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
[...] |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Fast-forward to the present day, and you see this usage in the above |
| 14 |
> discussion of gcc flags and in your example, "enabling" the numlock. |
| 15 |
> However, there's still an element of the original and standard English |
| 16 |
> usage, if you think about it. Just because numlock is "enabled" doesn't |
| 17 |
> mean there WILL be signals coming from the keyboard on the associated |
| 18 |
> keys. It only means that if they come, a specific interpretation of them |
| 19 |
> has been "enabled". Like the old serial protocol, if DTR was "enabled" it |
| 20 |
> meant any data sent would be interpreted in a specific way. If it was |
| 21 |
> disabled and the same data was sent, it would be interpreted differently, |
| 22 |
> in the case of the protocol, causing data to be thrown out and lost. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
That usage was wrong too, and I hope I never used it. DTR was not enabled, |
| 25 |
but set. Its state of being set is what enabled other things to happen. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Enabling numlock, if there were such a concept, would set it into a state in |
| 28 |
which I can then press it and get a result. It was in that state before, and |
| 29 |
no setting or unsetting of numlock will change that as long as the BIOS |
| 30 |
continues working. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> Similarly with gcc, just because a specific optimization is "enabled" |
| 33 |
> doesn't mean that any code will actually USE that optimization. It only |
| 34 |
> means that should the opportunity to use the optimization arise, taking |
| 35 |
> advantage of it is "enabled", where if the optimization were "disabled" |
| 36 |
> the code that could have taken advantage of that optimization won't. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
If flag A enables flag B, then flag B can take effect only if flag A is set, |
| 39 |
but flag B still does not have to be present. Think of them as two inputs to |
| 40 |
an AND logic gate and you'll see what I mean. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> That should make things considerably clearer. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
It doesn't. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
> -O<whatever> "enabling" a |
| 47 |
> particular optimization simply means that it's turned on, same as if you'd |
| 48 |
> "enabled" that particular optimization individually. However, regardless |
| 49 |
> of how that optimization is "enabled", just because it /is/ "enabled" |
| 50 |
> doesn't mean any code will come along that actually can make use of that |
| 51 |
> optimization, so the original English meaning of the term "enable" is |
| 52 |
> retained in that sense. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
No no no no no! This is misuse of the word. The proper word is not 'enabled' |
| 55 |
but 'set'. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
> My Dad is a teacher. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
So was mine, and my mother, and her mother and brother, and I've been told I |
| 60 |
could have been. Nothing I've said is affected by that. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
> So... Thanks very much for asking the question! |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Actually, I didn't ask a question (though I regret saying I needed help - |
| 65 |
put it down to an excess of politeness); you could say I issued a challenge. |
| 66 |
If so, it still stands. This use of 'enabled' to mean 'set' is just plain |
| 67 |
wrong. Sorry if that offends anyone. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
I don't suppose I can achieve anything with this, so perhaps I'd better can it. |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
-- |
| 72 |
Rgds |
| 73 |
Peter. |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
-- |
| 76 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives