On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Reuben Thomas wrote:
I don't think so. This paragraph is here to explain that one can usually rely
on _ but not when the follow or follow_fast option is used.
That's exactly the opposite of what the paragraph says. It says that "this
guarantee no longer holds if follow or follow_fast are *not* set" (my
emphasis). Hence, presumably this guarantee (that one can rely on _) *does*
hold if follow or follow_fast *is* set. Indeed, it means that one can rely
on _ *only* when using follow or follow_fast.
Right sorry, I overlooked a "not". Still, that bit of duplicated
information doesn't hurt, in particular when it explains that the remark
also applies to follow_fast (which is a separate option, so one can't
remove this sentence without loosing some useful information).
I beg to differ. First, you managed to misread it, and I'm sure others will.
Secondly, there is no information loss, as the paragraph is introduced with
these words:
"If either follow or follow_fast is in effect:"
To me it therefore seems both redundant and confusing.
--
http://rrt.sc3d.org/
L'art des vers est de transformer en beautés les faiblesses (Aragon)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
