Bug#210879: constitution.txt: fractured developers
O Martes, 30 de Setembro de 2003 ás 18:26:18 -0400, Alfie Costa escribía:
> >developers using a mathematical formula. It is later compared to a
> >natural number, "number of developers"
> Deja vu. Could it be that you stopped reading my uninteresting
> post after finishing the first paragraph? I included K's formula a
No, just after your second attempt to argue with the dictionary.
> >in fact describing the rounding rules for K would probably be quite
> >cumbersome and prone to subtle errors (as well as useful for nothing).
> The question of whether or not K is being rounded is still
> controversial. Even more so is the question of WHY it's controversial.
It's not controversial at all unless you are extremely bored and need to
invent a controversy to keep yourself busy.
What exactly don't you understand? K is not rounded. You need not round it
to compare it.
The constitution says "at least K developers". That means "K developers or
more". The meaning of that is unambiguous even if it is not possible to have
exactly K developers.
> Anyway, I say it's being rounded, and the language is already verbose
> and obscure. Such obscurity leads to odd controversies like this
> thread. Clarifying it would indeed be worthwhile, if only to set a
> better example.
It needs no clarification since the language is perfectly clear, even to
someone who has English as his third language, like me. It is your own fault
if you do not want to understand it.
> (Excuse a last minor carp: you say "In fact... would probably..." --
> but what's probable and hasn't occured can't really be a fact.
>From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
idiom
[...]
4: an expression whose meanings cannot be inferred from the
meanings of the words that make it up [syn: {idiomatic
expression}, {phrasal idiom}, {set phrase}, {phrase}]
--
Tarrío
(Compostela)
Reply to: