On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 15:49 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 09:16:06PM -0600, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Note that's a "may" and a "should", not a "must". IIRC they only trigger > > > lintian warnings, not errors. > > > > If I tell my son, "You may not go play in the rain.", he knows > > that he can't go play in the rain. > > <OT> > If you tell your som, "You must not go play in the rain", it's the best > way to be sure he'll be doing it ;) > </OT>
The best way to be sure he'll *want* to do it. He knows the consequences of disobeying a direct order can be "unpleasant". > > Thus, "may" in this context is ambiguous. "Should" is only slightly > > less so. > > See RFC 2119. I think usages of may, should, must and stuff should > follow these explanations. There's an RFC for words??? -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. Clueless "tech" journalists drive geeks crazy....
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
