Prev: questions about packages
Next: Comprehending error messages
From: Peter Keller on 26 Apr 2010 12:21
Paul Wallich <pw(a)panix.com> wrote:
> This is associativity problem. "X may Y" is essentially the same as "X
> might Y" _except_ when Y is a compound of the form "not Z". Then it is
> textually indistinguishable from "X may not Z", which in turn is
> essentially "X must (not Z)" rather than "X might (not Z)".

I thought it more of a permission versus possibility problem. 'May'
can be used in a permissive context OR a possibility context, but might
can only be used in a possibility context.

So while there is a difference as was pointed out, it is that the meaning of
may is a superset of might. It would appear to me, that it was still correctly
used. :)

I read 'might' in the original context as a possibility that the return
value of sort is or isn't eq-able to the argument passed in regardless
if the array is actually touched by the sorting algorithm or not.

So, if sort "might or might not" return an object identical to the
passed in argument, then I'd say your program "might or might not" work
if you don't setf the return value back into the generalized reference
of the argument.

-pete

From: Raffael Cavallaro on 26 Apr 2010 12:33
On 2010-04-26 11:55:02 -0400, Paul Wallich said:

> This is associativity problem. "X may Y" is essentially the same as "X
> might Y" _except_ when Y is a compound of the form "not Z". Then it is
> textually indistinguishable from "X may not Z", which in turn is
> essentially "X must (not Z)" rather than "X might (not Z)".
>
> paul copyediting is such fun

No offense intended, but imho this is a case where an attempted
clarification looks much like obfuscation.

More simply, in the restricted dialect of english commonly used in
formal standards, legal documents, etc:

"may not" = "is forbidden to"

e.g., "The user may not make a copy of the software" = "The user is
forbidden to make a copy of the software"

"might not" = "may possibly but is not required to"

e.g., "Any attempt at connection might not receive a response" = "Any
attempt at connection may possibly but is not required to receive a
response"

Finally, this strict usage of "may not" to mean "is forbidden to" is
not observed in colloquial speech; for example "I didn't get an answer
so he may not be at home," doesn't mean "having not answered his phone,
he is forbidden to be in his residence."

warmest regards

Ralph

--
Raffael Cavallaro

From: Norbert_Paul on 26 Apr 2010 12:56
Peter Keller wrote:
> Usually, programming language specs define terms like "should", "may", and
> "might". Is there a definition of these terms in the HS? I can't find them.

Well, even if you find these definitions they may be using words which themselves
are not defined in the spec.

Example:
The very first occurrence of "should", "may", or "might":
"1.1.2 History

However, minor details of its design have changed slightly since that publication,
and that paper /should/ not be taken as an authoritative reference to the semantics
of the object system as described in this document."

But no definition of what "should not be taken..." exacly means.

Norbert
;)
From: Tim Bradshaw on 26 Apr 2010 16:10
On 2010-04-26 16:55:02 +0100, Paul Wallich said:

> This is associativity problem. "X may Y" is essentially the same as "X
> might Y" _except_ when Y is a compound of the form "not Z". Then it is
> textually indistinguishable from "X may not Z", which in turn is
> essentially "X must (not Z)" rather than "X might (not Z)".

And all this is language (and perhaps dialect) dependent. Modal verbs
are different in German, for instance, particularly with regards to
negation.

From: Norbert_Paul on 27 Apr 2010 02:54
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> On 2010-04-26 16:55:02 +0100, Paul Wallich said:
>
>> This is associativity problem. "X may Y" is essentially the same as "X
>> might Y" _except_ when Y is a compound of the form "not Z". Then it is
>> textually indistinguishable from "X may not Z", which in turn is
>> essentially "X must (not Z)" rather than "X might (not Z)".
>
> And all this is language (and perhaps dialect) dependent. Modal verbs
> are different in German, for instance, particularly with regards to
> negation.

Can you explain that? I am German but I didn't notice that difference
till now.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: questions about packages
Next: Comprehending error messages