On 8/3/05, Joshua Juran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 2, 2005, at 4:18 AM, demerphq wrote: > > > On 7/28/05, Joe McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> On Jul 28, 2005, at 12:49 AM, Piotr Fusik wrote: > >> > >>>>> Note that a block by itself is semantically identical to a loop > >>>>> -that executes once. Thus C<last> can be used to effect an early > >>>>> +that executes once. Thus C<last> can be used to affect an early > >>>>> exit out of such a block. > > > > Perhaps this should use neither "affect" nor "effect". If native > > english speakers are going to debate which is appropriate then non > > native speakers shouldnt have to deal with it at all. > > > > Change it to "Thus C<last> can be used to _cause_ an early" (without > > emphasis) and the problem goes away. And IMO reads better anyway. > > How about "Thus C<last> can be used to exit out of such a block early."? > > I find 'effect' slightly more preferable than 'cause' -- it sounds > weird to 'cause' something that's entirely under your control anyway. > I don't cause a brushing of my teeth; I just brush them. Furthermore, > I find this use of 'effect' to be rather affected. :-)
Hmm, good point. I wonder if perl documentation authors have a tendency to avoid words that are also perl keywords in their contributions? :-) yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
