From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27D45653 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2023 09:09:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=crashcourse.ca header.i=@crashcourse.ca header.b="PlfXBAj3" Received: from cpanel10.indieserve.net (cpanel10.indieserve.net [199.212.143.9]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14F1610F7 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2023 02:09:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=crashcourse.ca; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Subject:cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=7OVhp4LcvrQs3MDPPjI/ApQAgDv5RKry6Hu5+rvH9sQ=; b=PlfXBAj36jl5nSpdvOnB54naTp XdGPeJQdISqM92j4DyB1r7AnegByPbq8R0aWam0PeSWZkR0QpbdW7WeBy7Kk3OMecWpFG0hDlHrJg i9paXXas7uXW/Immb4Bmlj4zf8fjXWHHxhWsFrbhsGveqFei5XvGS4l+R6vIehNo7bXqLr7Gfhb7o t6oFjSmqLpw9q6xyQRiNb2P8m+lgklQYJsBkg6s03VEZ42Tvv/dRntsaYxW+tU8PRW9KbuibSSDLy TU+KflYfAGf9BtyHODiVauzj47mJap31n/A9mnPrVpulPQZ3vtZVYVcG/dGBhuwuw/vPsWK7BUf7D 5j0semBg==; Received: from cpeac202e043973-cmac202e043970.sdns.net.rogers.com ([174.114.102.5]:52152 helo=fedora) by cpanel10.indieserve.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96.2) (envelope-from ) id 1qu7yZ-009dBV-26; Sat, 21 Oct 2023 05:08:57 -0400 Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2023 05:08:48 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" To: David Gibson cc: devicetree spec mailing list Subject: Re: Definition of "should" seems inconsistent with idea of "deprecated" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree-spec@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - cpanel10.indieserve.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - crashcourse.ca X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: cpanel10.indieserve.net: authenticated_id: rpjday+crashcourse.ca/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Authenticated-Sender: cpanel10.indieserve.net: rpjday@crashcourse.ca X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: On Fri, 20 Oct 2023, David Gibson wrote: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 07:03:56AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > Reading DTSpec v0.4, near the beginning: > > > > "The word should is used to indicate that among several possibilities > > one is recommended as particularly suitable, without mentioning or > > excluding others; or that a certain course of action is preferred but > > not necessarily required; or that (in the negative form) a certain > > course of action is deprecated but not prohibited (should equals is > > recommended that)." > > > > It seems contradictory to suggest that "should" implies > > "recommended" but, in the negative sense, it can also support > > I believe that by "in the negative form", it means when something says > "should not".. > > > "deprecated", which typically suggests something that is *not* > > recommended but is nonetheless acceptable. > > ..in which case being similar to "deprecated" makes sense. > > I will agree that saying "in the negative form", parenthesized, > amongst a cluster of interacting clauses is probably not a great way > of expressing this, and it might be clearer to explicitly give a > meaning to "should not". Yes, I see that I misread it somewhat and it's not as bad as I thought originally, but it definitely would be clearer if the concept of "should not" was combined with the idea of, say: "Should not" means that, even if a particular possibility is discouraged or deprecated, it is still acceptable as a viable choice. Or something like that. "in the negative form" is way too wordy for saying simply, "should not". rday