From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OmTA7-0000lW-SF for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:05:44 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EAF46E0AE9 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:05:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.ukfsn.org (mail.ukfsn.org [77.75.108.10]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE914E08F1 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:58:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (smtp-filter.ukfsn.org [192.168.54.205]) by mail.ukfsn.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0056CDEC2F for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:58:22 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail.ukfsn.org ([192.168.54.25]) by localhost (smtp-filter.ukfsn.org [192.168.54.205]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3IeawUflVp1T for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:58:22 +0100 (BST) Received: from humphrey.ukfsn.org (unknown [78.32.181.186]) by mail.ukfsn.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B86DCDEB9B for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:58:22 +0100 (BST) From: Peter Humphrey Organization: at home To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:58:21 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.4.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <201008200038.10640.peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> <4C6E8123.30301@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4C6E8123.30301@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201008201558.21825.peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> X-Archives-Salt: fec74ded-051a-407f-96ab-f9a35a4eed61 X-Archives-Hash: 36136717acf70e89f5ed2a929e59c1a7 On Friday 20 August 2010 14:20:35 Bill Longman wrote: > On 08/19/2010 04:38 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote: > > On Thursday 19 August 2010 21:21:20 Kevin O'Gorman wrote: > >> So I looked up "auto-hinter" in the flagedit(1) program. It says: > >> auto-hinter: Local Flag: Use the unpatented auto-hinter instead > >> of the (recommended) TrueType bytecode interpreter (media- > >> libs/freetype) > >> > >> The placement of the "(recommended)" is just a bit ambiguous. > > > > No, it isn't. You may be being confused by the unnecessary > > inclusion of brackets (parentheses if you're American); remove > > them and you see that the TrueType byte-code interpreter is > > recommended. Or, just consider the phrase "the recommended > > TrueType bytecode interpreter", with or without brackets. I can't > > see how that could be thought ambiguous. > > I have to agree it's ambiguous. You have to wonder why the > parenthetical "recommended" is offset if it's just part of the > sentence. If it were as you say, there would be no need to put them > there. As it is written it sounds like it's making an aside claiming > that one of them is recommended and, by its placement, it's hard to > discern its antecedent. Its placement puts it squarely with the noun phrase following it. To associate it with the preceding one instead would be perverse. (Just to continue flogging a dead horse...) :-) I agree though that the brackets are neither necessary nor helpful. -- Rgds Peter. Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23.