[erlang-questions] 'cannot' /= 'can not'

[Judson Lester]

To be fair to Michael, there is a legitimate (albeit somewhat tortured)
reading of "A can not be done" as "It is possible not to do A" that "A
cannot be done" doesn't admit. While I read the patch notes as meaning "It
is impossible to apply the kernel application separately", I can see where
confusion might arise.

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 6:17 AM Marc Worrell <marc@REDACTED> wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> “Cannot” and “can not” are both acceptable spellings.
> And there is no difference in meaning.
>
> See also:
> https://www.dailywritingtips.com/cannot-or-can-not/
>
> > If it can not be applied independently then it can also be
> > applied independently - which, in this case, is [..]
>
> Could it be that you see “can not only” where it says “can not” ?
>
> - Marc
>
>
> > On 24 Jul 2018, at 11:02, <empro2@REDACTED> <empro2@REDACTED> wrote:
> >
> > This is only the most recent occurrence that finally
> > makes me write this:
> >
> > <quote>
> > [erlang-questions] Patch package OTP 20.3.8.3 released
> > Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:13:22 +0200
> > [...]
> > Note! The kernel-5.4.3.2 application can *not* be applied
> >       independently of other applications on an arbitrary
> >      OTP 20 installation.
> > [...]
> > </quote>
> >
> > If it can not be applied independently then it can also be
> > applied independently - which, in this case, is
> > probably not what is meant. But this is guesswork, relying
> > on the reader already knowing the meaning of what is
> > being said, rendering the saying it much less useful.
> >
> > Modals are a mess (spoken languages are, after ceturies of
> > abuse like the one discussed in "[erlang-questions] Orelse
> > and andalso as short-hand for case"), but they convey
> > critical meaning.
> >
> > Nine(?) of ten "can not"s in the Erlang docs must be
> > "cannot" to convey the correct meaning. Reading the docs has
> > already made me convert every "can not" I read into
> > "cannot" - I mean *every*, not only those in the Erlang
> > docs - and then back again (only about 1 of 10 in the
> > Erlang docs). This is a real, and substantial, waste of
> > post-orbital CPU cycles; not the conversion itself, but the
> > distraction from understanding whatever meaning the author
> > actually tries to get across.
> >
> > If someone with authority (and authorisation) could and
> > would please write and run a script and convert all "can
> > not" -> "cannot" in all OTP strings, binaries and comments?
> > This will introduce errors, as there actually are a few,
> > rare correct "can not"s, but it will correct about 9 times
> > more of wrong ones that really need to be "cannot".
> >
> > At least in the doc strings?
> >
> > Please?
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > --
> >
> > Time is not money, but money is time: life-time people have
> > spent transforming their environment.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > erlang-questions mailing list
> > erlang-questions@REDACTED
> > http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20180724/2ce32203/attachment.htm>