Definition of "should" seems inconsistent with idea of "deprecated"

Definition of "should" seems inconsistent with idea of "deprecated"

[Robert P. J. Day]

  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
"deprecated", which typically suggests something that is *not*
recommended but is nonetheless acceptable.

  It just seems like that's giving off mixed messages.

rday

Re: Definition of "should" seems inconsistent with idea of "deprecated"

[David Gibson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1402 bytes --]

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".

> 
>   It just seems like that's giving off mixed messages.
> 
> rday
> 

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Definition of "should" seems inconsistent with idea of "deprecated"

[Robert P. J. Day]

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

Re: Definition of "should" seems inconsistent with idea of "deprecated"

[David Gibson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2190 bytes --]

On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 05:08:48AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 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".

Yeah.  I guess it covers "shouldn't" as well, and maybe there are
other ways of negating the sense of "should" that I'm not thinking of
at the moment.  Not convinced that's a good trade off, though.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]