>> How about using plain language and calling it a "whole number"
>> instead of using jargon ?
>
> How about not catering to the lowest common denominator and devolving
> to baby-speech for fear that someone may be intimidated by a
> dictionary ?
Saying what you mean in the plainest terms possible isn't baby-talk and
isn't about being intimidated by a dictionary: it's about communicating
as clearly and directly as possible. Using jargon is great when it
actually adds something but is mere obfuscation the rest of the time
(often with a side order of patting self on the back for knowing a way
of saying things that some others will find it harder to follow).
In paticular, in the case of "integral", there is a second meaning of
the word (go on, check that dictionary, in case you've forgotten your
calculus) which creates a (completely wanton, given that there's a
plainer term for a number being whole) potential for confusing readers.
Even transient confusion disrupts the flow of reading (as does having to
look a word up in a dictionary, for that matter). Plain language aids
all readers,
Eddy, a mathematician.
_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
