| 1 |
On 10-02-2006 01:30:40 -0700, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Grobian posted <20060209214832.GD28046@g.o>, excerpted below, on |
| 3 |
> Thu, 09 Feb 2006 22:48:32 +0100: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > .. [3] For the purpose of readability, we will refer to 1, 2 and |
| 6 |
> > 4-tuples, even though tuple in itself suggest a field consisting of |
| 7 |
> > two values. For clarity: a 1-tuple describes a single value field, |
| 8 |
> > while a 4-tuple decribes a field consisting out of four values. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> OK, despite the given reasoning, I found this distracting. Perhaps this |
| 11 |
> is one of Ciaran's English readability suggestions, but is there a reason |
| 12 |
> not to s/segment/tuple/g ? That seems to me more accurate, "segment" is |
| 13 |
> more accessible English to non-programmers than "tuple", and it should |
| 14 |
> cure the distraction problem I experienced. Of course, it could be just me... |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I assume you meant to replace 'tuple' with 'segment'. First of all, I |
| 17 |
might be biased, as for me everything is a binary association table. |
| 18 |
However, I don't think a segment is the same in this case. 'part' would |
| 19 |
be better, perhaps. In the end I think GLEPs are targetted at |
| 20 |
programmers: those of Gentoo, as such it is not targetted at a broad |
| 21 |
(and generic) audience at all. I prefer to stick with 'tuples' for now. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> If the current usage, and thus the footnote, is retained, there's a typo |
| 24 |
> in the last line quoted. s/decribes/describes/ (which I only caught when |
| 25 |
> the spellchecker hilighted it in the quote as I replied). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Thanks, got it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 32 |
Gentoo/Alt |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives