Michael Sperber scripsit:
> > The define-condition-type form also defines <predicate> to a
> > predicate that identifies conditions associated with that type, or
> > with any of its subtypes.
> >
> > This is awkward. It would be better either to use "binds" instead of
> > "defines" or to use "defines... to be" throughout.
>
> Could you explain why this is awkward? To my mind, this "defines" is
> exactly right as it refers to the underlying semantics, which (as far
> as binding is concerned) acts precisely like `define'. "Binding" is
> more general, and thus more vague in this context.
"Define ... to" is simply un-English. Either write "defines X to be", or
if you consider that too vague, write "binds as if by <code>define</code>
to".
> > This type denotes that an exception handler invoked via
> > raise returned.
> >
> > The word "is" should appear before "returned."
While the suggested fix is wrong, the complaint is justified. I suggest
"has returned", which cannot be as easily misinterpreted.
--
One Word to write them all, John Cowan <cowan_at_ccil.org>
One Access to find them, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
One Excel to count them all,
And thus to Windows bind them. --Mike Champion
Received on Mon Nov 20 2006 - 11:59:57 UTC