Re: About /dev/sr impatience with automatic tray loading
Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 11.12.18 09:44, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > mick crane wrote:
> > > On 2018-12-10 20:02, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> > > > For the purpose of sr_drive_status(), the loop is really inappropriate.
> > > > This function shall obtain the drive status and not wait until the
> > > > status of the medium is decided.
> > > >
> >
> > > completely off the topic but I have noticed that people whose first language
> > > might not be english use
> > > "shall" as apposed to "will" or "should". It seems a little bit old
> > > fashioned but maybe it isn't.
> >
> > The English use it more than Americans do.
> >
> > "Shall" has a connotation of ordering future action. Americans
> > nearly always prefer "should".
>
> Here down under, my exposure to "shall" over the last four decades has
> primarily been in communications products specifications, where it meant
> "must" as far as we the system designers and implementers were concerned.
> "Should" would not be an adequate substitute, I think, where failure to
> comply is breach of contract.
Indeed, in legal and technical language, "shall" and "will" are orders
for compliance. In ordinary speech and writing, though, "You shall take
the recycling bin to the street" vs "You should take the recycling bin
to the street" -- Americans will never say the former. Well, I
would, but ...
-dsr-
Reply to: