On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Warrigal wrote:
>> The negation of SHALL is NEED NOT, not SHALL NOT. Not that NEED NOT is
>> actually defined by MMI.
>
> I suspect we need it rarely enough that we can get away with "So-and-so
> MAY choose whether or not to foo."
>
NEED NOT is the A
Warrigal wrote:
> The negation of SHALL is NEED NOT, not SHALL NOT. Not that NEED NOT is
> actually defined by MMI.
To preserve the literalness of the NOT phrases, it should be MAY NOT.
That's confusing though.
Perhaps... "MAY not"? "MAY OR MAY NOT"? "MAY or not?"
bah.
I suspect we need it ra
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>> While we've found that SHALL -> CAN, we haven't found that SHALL NOT ->
>> CANNOT. In fact, accepting that SHALL NOT -> CANNOT would probably
>> break a lot of things.
>
> It seems to me (based on a dusty recollection of formal logic) th
On Mar 13, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
== CFJ 2412
==
[snip]
So how does that translate for SHALL->CAN?
Gratuitous addition:
While we've found that SHALL -> CAN, we haven't found th
ehird wrote:
> Murphy, missed this?
I've got it, just haven't caught up on updating e-mails to the
database yet. Maybe later tonight.
5 matches
Mail list logo
