From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Parkins Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Teach 'diff' about 'nodiff' attribute. Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:30:38 +0100 Message-ID: <200704131230.41594.andyparkins@gmail.com> References: <7vodlsd4wc.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <461F602C.E9803108@eudaptics.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Johannes Sixt To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Apr 13 13:30:54 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HcJzQ-0006Pm-33 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:30:52 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753512AbXDMLat (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:30:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753541AbXDMLat (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:30:49 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.169]:5471 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753512AbXDMLas (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:30:48 -0400 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 44so524069uga for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:30:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=sifGVpXkN3qkUICKgBqEA9MpaicHYmB7MD0XCv1svQh27sbKnjvGlVQc3MHLnna3lk5D9qQIp6but0AllAvIsiZejaYYrauxBiFfiIHOEfEFOGH7nT9G6CN74grAod9fXzMypmdRyVC+wj0+cC/t/6OK5mJv8p/jPe2/2a0tmtE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=LdvlIE2Efkltp2MSHoR6zDaJiYBNbUz25jL8YH8kFfFuAudeXZEUUiQaOJ9rOi1U+2lP2NNNpid2zdf9fhhB5dLuwpeJYYMIU0hX+5osUPdu95G2x/z8FpDHW6nVDJqnzMgBNsyNySTIXY2uQQU0tZe4S7dGueeG/uIHvm2g57Y= Received: by 10.67.40.12 with SMTP id s12mr1945475ugj.1176463846969; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:30:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.11.214? ( [84.201.153.164]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id k28sm5039323ugd.2007.04.13.04.30.44; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:30:45 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 In-Reply-To: <461F602C.E9803108@eudaptics.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Friday 2007, April 13, Johannes Sixt wrote: > -- Hannes "Can't we not have no double negation please?" Sixt There's nothing wrong with double negatives per se. They often confer more meaning than simple logic would suggest. For example: I can't not hate CVS I hate CVS Logically identical, but semantically different. In the first, the speak would be suggesting that they've tried, but failed, to like CVS; in the second the speaker just hates it. Language isn't logic, it's fuzzy logic :-). The reason I think it's relevant to bring this up is that I think identifier naming in programming should try to use language to lead the reader down the same thought path as the writer. You want a flag that controls whether a thread is running - should it be called RunFlag or StopFlag? while( RunFlag ) while( !StopFlag ) I think that the context is important. I, personally, wouldn't like to say which is correct in that case - or in the "nodiff"/"!diff" question. However, I don't think it's correct to universally rule out all double negative use - they have their place. Andy -- Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIET andyparkins@gmail.com