Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:53:55 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
Sorry for the delay in responding, been on holiday.
Defined usage:
() parentheses
[] brackets
{} braces
Defined? Defined where?
The OED.
In English*, a parenthesis is a separate expression** marked off from
the rest of the sentence with brackets.
The OED defines parenthesis in the singular as a word clause or sentence
inserted as an explanation or afterthought..., which agrees with you,
but the plural form of parentheses as a pair of round brackets used for
this.
So your statement is correct, but not relevant to the text you
quoted :P ;-)
--
Neil Bothwick
We all know what comes after 'X', said Tom, wisely.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages
Peter Humphrey wrote: On Thursday 19 August 2010 21:21:20 Kevin O'Gorman wrote: So I looked up auto-hinter in the flagedit(1) program. It says: auto-hinter: Local Flag: Use the unpatented auto-hinter instead of the (recommended) TrueType bytecode interpreter (media- libs/freetype) The placement of the (recommended) is just a bit ambiguous. No, it isn't. You may be being confused by the unnecessary inclusion of brackets (parentheses if you're American); remove them and you see that the TrueType byte-code interpreter is recommended. Or, just consider the phrase the recommended TrueType bytecode interpreter, with or without brackets. I can't see how that could be thought ambiguous. Well Peter is not alone. I saw that a week or so ago and I couldn't figure out what the heck any of it meant. Sort of reminds me of what euse -i gives me, Greek or may as well be anyway. Most of them doesn't make much sense unless you already know what they are, then you have no need to look. I usually go to the forums and search around to see what things mean. I just forgot to do that in this case. So, all that said, what the heck are we supposed to change here? Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 02:20:09 -0500, Dale wrote: So, all that said, what the heck are we supposed to change here? Nothing, unless you're using the bindist USE flag, in which case you should replace it by auto-hinter. All that's happened is that control of that feature has passed from one USE flag to another, because of a licensing change. -- Neil Bothwick The world is a tragedy to those who feel, but a comedy to those who think.(Horace Walpole) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:38:10 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
No, it isn't. You may be being confused by the unnecessary inclusion of
brackets (parentheses if you're American);
If you're British too:
Defined usage:
() parentheses
[] brackets
{} braces
General usage:
() brackets
[] square brackets
{} curly brackets
I'll let you decide which is the more intuitive usage.
--
Neil Bothwick
Half of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages
Neil Bothwick wrote: On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 02:20:09 -0500, Dale wrote: So, all that said, what the heck are we supposed to change here? Nothing, unless you're using the bindist USE flag, in which case you should replace it by auto-hinter. All that's happened is that control of that feature has passed from one USE flag to another, because of a licensing change. Oh. Why didn't they just say that then? :-) if using bindist USE flag please change over to auto-hinter unless you have a good reason not to switch. See, I like it simple. I can understand that. Change over unless you know a really good reason not too. My note: changed USE flag in make.conf. Done. Thanks. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages
Apparently, though unproven, at 10:03 on Friday 20 August 2010, Neil Bothwick
did opine thusly:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:38:10 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
No, it isn't. You may be being confused by the unnecessary inclusion of
brackets (parentheses if you're American);
If you're British too:
Defined usage:
() parentheses
[] brackets
{} braces
General usage:
() brackets
[] square brackets
{} curly brackets
I'll let you decide which is the more intuitive usage.
The former, obviously.
Stuff has names, people should learn the names.
Arrogant jerk on second floor with a beard and no head hair is definitely
more intuitive to my new staff, but for anyone here longer than a week it is
far simpler to just use the name of the thing instead of some description, and
refer to me as Alan
--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages
Apparently, though unproven, at 01:38 on Friday 20 August 2010, Peter Humphrey did opine thusly: On Thursday 19 August 2010 21:21:20 Kevin O'Gorman wrote: So I looked up auto-hinter in the flagedit(1) program. It says: auto-hinter: Local Flag: Use the unpatented auto-hinter instead of the (recommended) TrueType bytecode interpreter (media- libs/freetype) The placement of the (recommended) is just a bit ambiguous. No, it isn't. You may be being confused by the unnecessary inclusion of brackets (parentheses if you're American); remove them and you see that the TrueType byte-code interpreter is recommended. Or, just consider the phrase the recommended TrueType bytecode interpreter, with or without brackets. I can't see how that could be thought ambiguous. The parenthesis is actually correct as the recommendation is just an aside comment in this context. The sentence expands to: instead of the TrueType bytecode interpreter (TrueType is the recommended interpreter to use btw) -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:01:50 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: Arrogant jerk on second floor with a beard and no head hair is definitely more intuitive to my new staff, but for anyone here longer than a week it is far simpler to just use the name of the thing instead of some description, and refer to me as Alan I thought you were talking about me until I realised I was reading it downstairs :) -- Neil Bothwick Hm..what's this red button fo|'».'NO CARRIER signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages
On 08/19/2010 04:38 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote: On Thursday 19 August 2010 21:21:20 Kevin O'Gorman wrote: So I looked up auto-hinter in the flagedit(1) program. It says: auto-hinter: Local Flag: Use the unpatented auto-hinter instead of the (recommended) TrueType bytecode interpreter (media- libs/freetype) The placement of the (recommended) is just a bit ambiguous. No, it isn't. You may be being confused by the unnecessary inclusion of brackets (parentheses if you're American); remove them and you see that the TrueType byte-code interpreter is recommended. Or, just consider the phrase the recommended TrueType bytecode interpreter, with or without brackets. I can't see how that could be thought ambiguous. I have to agree it's ambiguous. You have to wonder why the parenthetical recommended is offset if it's just part of the sentence. If it were as you say, there would be no need to put them there. As it is written it sounds like it's making an aside claiming that one of them is recommended and, by its placement, it's hard to discern its antecedent. That's my first impression. And I'm sticking to it.
Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages
On Friday 20 August 2010 09:03:46 Neil Bothwick wrote:
Defined usage:
() parentheses
[] brackets
{} braces
Defined? Defined where?
In English*, a parenthesis is a separate expression** marked off from the
rest of the sentence with brackets. Round ones, that is. A parenthesis
is not a punctuation mark, unless you want to be loose and informal
about it.
* This is what I learned at school, it accords with all my experience so
far except in American fora, and I see no need to change my
understanding.
** Thus becoming a parenthetical expression.
I'll get off my soapbox now... :-)
--
Rgds
Peter. Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23.
Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages
On Friday 20 August 2010 14:20:35 Bill Longman wrote: On 08/19/2010 04:38 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote: On Thursday 19 August 2010 21:21:20 Kevin O'Gorman wrote: So I looked up auto-hinter in the flagedit(1) program. It says: auto-hinter: Local Flag: Use the unpatented auto-hinter instead of the (recommended) TrueType bytecode interpreter (media- libs/freetype) The placement of the (recommended) is just a bit ambiguous. No, it isn't. You may be being confused by the unnecessary inclusion of brackets (parentheses if you're American); remove them and you see that the TrueType byte-code interpreter is recommended. Or, just consider the phrase the recommended TrueType bytecode interpreter, with or without brackets. I can't see how that could be thought ambiguous. I have to agree it's ambiguous. You have to wonder why the parenthetical recommended is offset if it's just part of the sentence. If it were as you say, there would be no need to put them there. As it is written it sounds like it's making an aside claiming that one of them is recommended and, by its placement, it's hard to discern its antecedent. Its placement puts it squarely with the noun phrase following it. To associate it with the preceding one instead would be perverse. (Just to continue flogging a dead horse...) :-) I agree though that the brackets are neither necessary nor helpful. -- Rgds Peter. Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23.
Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages
On 08/20/2010 07:58 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote: On Friday 20 August 2010 14:20:35 Bill Longman wrote: On 08/19/2010 04:38 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote: On Thursday 19 August 2010 21:21:20 Kevin O'Gorman wrote: So I looked up auto-hinter in the flagedit(1) program. It says: auto-hinter: Local Flag: Use the unpatented auto-hinter instead of the (recommended) TrueType bytecode interpreter (media- libs/freetype) The placement of the (recommended) is just a bit ambiguous. No, it isn't. You may be being confused by the unnecessary inclusion of brackets (parentheses if you're American); remove them and you see that the TrueType byte-code interpreter is recommended. Or, just consider the phrase the recommended TrueType bytecode interpreter, with or without brackets. I can't see how that could be thought ambiguous. I have to agree it's ambiguous. You have to wonder why the parenthetical recommended is offset if it's just part of the sentence. If it were as you say, there would be no need to put them there. As it is written it sounds like it's making an aside claiming that one of them is recommended and, by its placement, it's hard to discern its antecedent. Its placement puts it squarely with the noun phrase following it. To associate it with the preceding one instead would be perverse. (Just to continue flogging a dead horse...):-) Yet you yourself just put a parenthetical aside after its antecedent, not before it. Double flog. Double :-). I agree though that the brackets are neither necessary nor helpful.
[WAY OT] Parenthese, was Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages
On 8/20/2010 11:40 AM, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
As to the thingies, I enjoyed discovering that to many people a
parenthesis is not a glyph or punctuation mark, but instead the contents
of the language set aside in one way or another. I had always regarded
parentheses as the round glyphs (), but this turns out to be normative
primarily in mathematics, computer programming languages and similar
fields. But I find several competing meanings and sources using
http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=parenthesisia=luna
http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=parenthesisia=luna
In American English usage, the three forms of puncutation mark have
distinct names. Contrary to previous assertions, these names are not
informal; authoritative American English dictionaries like M-W define
bracket, brace, and parenthesis separately as punctuation marks.
In British English they're all called brackets, e.g. square, curly, or
round.
The Romance languages are somewhat varied, but they mostly use the Greek
word parenthesis to derive their term for () marks; in some cases, that
word is use for *all* brackets; in other cases [] and {} have separate
terms:
() = parenthèses (Fr.), paréntesis (Sp.), parentesi tonde (It.)
[] = crochets (Fr.), corchetes (Sp.), parentesi quadre (It.)
{} = accolades (Fr.), corchetes (Sp.), parentesi graffe (It.)
For what it's worth, Unicode defines U+0028 AND U+0029 as LEFT
PARENTHESIS and RIGHT PARENTHESIS (also OPENING PARENTHESIS and
CLOSING PARENTHESIS).
--Mike
Re: [WAY OT] Parenthese, was Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages
Apparently, though unproven, at 19:07 on Friday 20 August 2010, Mike Edenfield
did opine thusly:
On 8/20/2010 11:40 AM, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
As to the thingies, I enjoyed discovering that to many people a
parenthesis is not a glyph or punctuation mark, but instead the contents
of the language set aside in one way or another. I had always regarded
parentheses as the round glyphs (), but this turns out to be normative
primarily in mathematics, computer programming languages and similar
fields. But I find several competing meanings and sources using
http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=parenthesisia=luna
http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=parenthesisia=luna
In American English usage, the three forms of puncutation mark have
distinct names. Contrary to previous assertions, these names are not
informal; authoritative American English dictionaries like M-W define
bracket, brace, and parenthesis separately as punctuation marks.
In British English they're all called brackets, e.g. square, curly, or
round.
Yuck. Too many times I've had someone dictate text and this happens:
Them: blah blah open bracket blah blah
Me: Which bracket?
Them: huh?
Me: You said open bracket. What kind of bracket?
Them: Curly?
Me: You mean brace.
Them: Yes, that's the one! Is that what it's called then?
Way too many words. Just give the bloody thing a name.
Like Eskimo's with 20+ words for different kinds of snow.
Say snow to any Eskimo, see what happens :-)
The Romance languages are somewhat varied, but they mostly use the Greek
word parenthesis to derive their term for () marks; in some cases, that
word is use for *all* brackets; in other cases [] and {} have separate
terms:
() = parenthèses (Fr.), paréntesis (Sp.), parentesi tonde (It.)
[] = crochets (Fr.), corchetes (Sp.), parentesi quadre (It.)
{} = accolades (Fr.), corchetes (Sp.), parentesi graffe (It.)
For what it's worth, Unicode defines U+0028 AND U+0029 as LEFT
PARENTHESIS and RIGHT PARENTHESIS (also OPENING PARENTHESIS and
CLOSING PARENTHESIS).
--Mike
--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
[gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages
I just got this elog from updating my gentoo system. It's from freetype-2.4.2: begin -- LOG (postinst) The TrueType bytecode interpreter is no longer patented and thus no longer controlled by the bindist USE flag. Enable the auto-hinter USE flag if you want the old USE=bindist hinting behavior. - end --- So I looked up auto-hinter in the flagedit(1) program. It says: auto-hinter: Local Flag: Use the unpatented auto-hinter instead of the (recommended) TrueType bytecode interpreter (media-libs/freetype) The placement of the (recommended) is just a bit ambiguous. Is it recommenting the unpatented auto-hinter, or making a recommendation of the TrueType bytecode interpreter? I'm guessing the former, but not with complete confidence. I want clear font rendering, which I guess means using hints, and I've added the auto-hinter use-flag in package.use. I hope I guessed right. -- Kevin O'Gorman, PhD
Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:21:20 -0700, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: So I looked up auto-hinter in the flagedit(1) program. It says: auto-hinter: Local Flag: Use the unpatented auto-hinter instead of the (recommended) TrueType bytecode interpreter (media-libs/freetype) The placement of the (recommended) is just a bit ambiguous. Is it recommenting the unpatented auto-hinter, or making a recommendation of the TrueType bytecode interpreter? I'm guessing the former, but not with complete confidence. I'm confident it means the latter. -- Neil Bothwick If at first you do succeed, try to hide your astonishment. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages
On Thursday 19 August 2010 21:21:20 Kevin O'Gorman wrote: So I looked up auto-hinter in the flagedit(1) program. It says: auto-hinter: Local Flag: Use the unpatented auto-hinter instead of the (recommended) TrueType bytecode interpreter (media- libs/freetype) The placement of the (recommended) is just a bit ambiguous. No, it isn't. You may be being confused by the unnecessary inclusion of brackets (parentheses if you're American); remove them and you see that the TrueType byte-code interpreter is recommended. Or, just consider the phrase the recommended TrueType bytecode interpreter, with or without brackets. I can't see how that could be thought ambiguous. -- Rgds Peter. Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23.
