1 |
On 08/19/2010 04:38 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
2 |
> On Thursday 19 August 2010 21:21:20 Kevin O'Gorman wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> So I looked up "auto-hinter" in the flagedit(1) program. It says: |
5 |
>> auto-hinter: Local Flag: Use the unpatented auto-hinter instead |
6 |
>> of the (recommended) TrueType bytecode interpreter (media- |
7 |
>> libs/freetype) |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> The placement of the "(recommended)" is just a bit ambiguous. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> No, it isn't. You may be being confused by the unnecessary inclusion of |
12 |
> brackets (parentheses if you're American); remove them and you see that |
13 |
> the TrueType byte-code interpreter is recommended. Or, just consider the |
14 |
> phrase "the recommended TrueType bytecode interpreter", with or without |
15 |
> brackets. I can't see how that could be thought ambiguous. |
16 |
|
17 |
I have to agree it's ambiguous. You have to wonder why the parenthetical |
18 |
"recommended" is offset if it's just part of the sentence. If it were as |
19 |
you say, there would be no need to put them there. As it is written it |
20 |
sounds like it's making an aside claiming that one of them is |
21 |
recommended and, by its placement, it's hard to discern its antecedent. |
22 |
|
23 |
That's my first impression. And I'm sticking to it. |