On 2003-12-04 03:48:28 +0000 Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Then I would have to say that we have, in fact, gone far enough into
the
realms of esoteric math (or pedantry) to have utterly lost any casual
reader.
Accuracy and pedantry are not the same thing. I see little evidence
that we have "utterly lost any casual reader" with the present
accurate version, which is why I asked for demonstration of that
before this bug reopens. There seems to be one (1) loss of an
irrational person (who appears to have some grudge against Manoj) and
possibly one misunderstanding. Then again, it probably depends whether
that "any" phrase to means "some casual reader will be lost" or "all
casual readers will be lost".
I don't want to debate whether there is a "functional difference"
because I think I will be accused of more "esoteric math[s]" talk and
it's not relevant. The phrasing in question here seems accurate and
clear enough that you can understand it in its present form. I don't
see why having studied for maths degrees should disqualify my request
for accuracy. At least I am a user of the affected package, which
should count for something.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
