Jürgen, At first I thought I had been doing it wrong all these years, and that now I finally had seen the light, but in J:
1, 2, 3 & 4!!! |domain error | 1,2, 3&4!!! 1, 2, 3, & 4!!! 1 , 2 , 3 ,&4 ! ! ! What are we going to do??? Louis > On 27 Apr 2017, at 13:44, Juergen Sauermann <juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> > wrote: > > Hi, > > the Oxford Comma is definitely broken because 'and' is dyadic: > > 1, 2, 3, ∧ 4 > VALENCE ERROR > 1,2,3,∧4 > ^ > > 1, 2, 3 ∧ 4 > 1 2 12 > > > /// Jürgen > > >> On 04/26/2017 04:29 PM, enz...@gmx.com wrote: >> http://www.theonion.com/americanvoices/oxford-comma-wins-court-case-workers-55578 >> >> >> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 16:25:52 +0200 >> Juergen Sauermann <juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> this sentence is the verbatim copy of the phrase proposed in >>> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt >>> (chapter 17) and I do not feel like criticising the GNU project for their >>> spelling. >>> >>> /// Jürgen >>> >>> >>> On 04/22/2017 12:28 AM, enz...@gmx.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> Thanks you guys doing this )help is really appreciated - maybe I can >>> make a contribution too >>> >>> line 13 but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty >>> of ; -> , for oxford comma? >>> >>> references : >>> >>> https://www.grammarly.com/blog/what-is-the-oxford-comma-and-why-do-people-care-so-much-about-it/ >>> >>> http://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Missing-Comma-Could-Cost-Maine-Company-Millions-416458593.html >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 23:01:01 +0200 >>> Alexey Veretennikov <alexey.veretenni...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sure here it is. Don't expect anything big in it - it is just a couple >>> of lines of text. >>> >>> >>> >>> >
