Brian McCauley wrote:
Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:... I'd keep the "for which" even if some people consider such strict English grammar to be affected.
I guess it reads better if using commas:
The easiest and the fastest way to solve the nested subroutines problem is to switch every lexically scoped variable, you get the warning for, to a global package variable.
OK, I still find the strict English grammar easier to read in this instance, but I'll go with your form.
I know, as a newbie to the list, I probably won't have much sway in this, but I have to agree with Brian. I read the version above -- the one with commas -- and it just isn't working for me. My brain just won't parse that as correct English (or even Englilsh). If I remember my grammar correctly, you only use commas to set of a descriptive phrase when it's a noun clause (such as "my friend's cousin", "the big red one over there", etc.). Prepositional phrases should flow inline with the noun being described. That's why there're no commas. It becomes, "every lexically scoped variable you get the error for," if you're not going to mind the misuse of the preposition. I'd be fine with that under most circumstances, but the following context makes it weird, which was probably Brian's original point. Switching to correct use of the preposition, "for which", fixes that. "...switch every lexically scoped variable for which you get the warning to a..."
It's not affected -- it's correct. We American's sometimes think of correct grammar as affected (myself included), but sometimes it's correct anyways and it actually makes things easier to understand.
Ok, enough of my english rant, flame on :)
Jacob Fugal
