driven zen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> > Karl Eichwalder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I just catched this typo:
^^^^^^^
Heh.
> > > 2000-11-24 Karl Eichwalder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > * http.c (http_loop): Fix a typo in message string.
> > >
> > > --- http.c.~1.24.~ Wed Nov 22 17:58:21 2000
> > > +++ http.c Fri Nov 24 05:21:58 2000
> > > @@ -1428,7 +1428,7 @@
> > > (hstat.contlen == -1 || local_size == hstat.contlen))
> > > {
> > > logprintf (LOG_VERBOSE, _("\
> > > -Server file no newer than local file `%s' -- not retrieving.\n\n"),
> > > +Server file not newer than local file `%s' -- not retrieving.\n\n"),
> >
> > I'm not sure the first version is a typo. I think this version of the
> > string is Dan's, and it sounds like correct English to me.
> >
> > "no" == "not any"
> >
> > There is no milk on the table.
> > Server file [is] no newer than local file.
> >
> > I might be wrong, though.
>
> This is an area in which I can claim some expertise.
As can I. SAT verbal somewhere in the 700s (by the old reckoning). A good
bit better than my math score. ;^>
> The original is technically correct but stylistically
> awkward. The sentence containing "not newer" is also
> correct and is better English.
Yes, both are correct, but I disagree that the second is inherently better
English. I'd characterize the difference as one of emphasis. My "no newer
than" version emphasizes (and draws attention to) the timestamp comparison,
whereas "not newer than" simply neutrally states a fact without drawing the
reader's attention to the essential bit.
> This problem seems to arise from the use of the word
> "newer," an acceptable but awkward formation when put
> through the paces seen here.
Umm... "newer" awkward? Can't say that I agree.
> This could be solved by:
>
> 1. choosing a different term to compare/contrast the files,
> e.g.:
>
> Server file no more recent than local file...
The reason I left out " is " and any articles was to keep the message
terse. I don't see how "more recent" differs from "newer" except in being
unnecessarily longer.
> 2. changing the direction of the comparison/contrast so
> that the local file is mentioned first, e.g.:
>
> Local file as new as Server file...
That strikes me as a really obtuse way of putting it, not to mention the
fact that it's incorrect. The correct message with that phrasing would be
"Local file at least as new as...".
> Please note that, like the original author of these lines,
> I am omitting the verb "is" to keep the string as short
> as possible.
>
> I make no claim to having exhaustively examined possible
> means of expressing the conception of the original author.
> There may well be many other more useful phrasings.
Well, the original author (Hrvoje) used:
Local file `%s' is more recent, not retrieving.
I reworded it because like your "as new as" version, it's inaccurate -- the
local file may have the same time stamp rather than being more recent.
I still prefer my original ("no newer than") fix.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Harkless | To help prevent SPAM contamination,
GNU Wget co-maintainer | please do not mention this email
http://sunsite.dk/wget/ | address in Usenet posts -- thank you.
