<div dir="ltr">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.</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 6:17 AM Marc Worrell <<a href="mailto:marc@worrell.nl">marc@worrell.nl</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Michael,<br>
<br>
“Cannot” and “can not” are both acceptable spellings.<br>
And there is no difference in meaning.<br>
<br>
See also:<br>
<a href="https://www.dailywritingtips.com/cannot-or-can-not/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.dailywritingtips.com/cannot-or-can-not/</a><br>
<br>
> If it can not be applied independently then it can also be<br>
> applied independently - which, in this case, is [..]<br>
<br>
Could it be that you see “can not only” where it says “can not” ?<br>
<br>
- Marc<br>
<br>
<br>
> On 24 Jul 2018, at 11:02, <<a href="mailto:empro2@web.de" target="_blank">empro2@web.de</a>> <<a href="mailto:empro2@web.de" target="_blank">empro2@web.de</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> This is only the most recent occurrence that finally<br>
> makes me write this:<br>
> <br>
> <quote><br>
> [erlang-questions] Patch package OTP 20.3.8.3 released<br>
> Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:13:22 +0200<br>
> [...]<br>
> Note! The kernel-5.4.3.2 application can *not* be applied<br>
> independently of other applications on an arbitrary<br>
> OTP 20 installation.<br>
> [...]<br>
> </quote><br>
> <br>
> If it can not be applied independently then it can also be<br>
> applied independently - which, in this case, is<br>
> probably not what is meant. But this is guesswork, relying<br>
> on the reader already knowing the meaning of what is<br>
> being said, rendering the saying it much less useful.<br>
> <br>
> Modals are a mess (spoken languages are, after ceturies of<br>
> abuse like the one discussed in "[erlang-questions] Orelse<br>
> and andalso as short-hand for case"), but they convey<br>
> critical meaning.<br>
> <br>
> Nine(?) of ten "can not"s in the Erlang docs must be<br>
> "cannot" to convey the correct meaning. Reading the docs has<br>
> already made me convert every "can not" I read into<br>
> "cannot" - I mean *every*, not only those in the Erlang<br>
> docs - and then back again (only about 1 of 10 in the<br>
> Erlang docs). This is a real, and substantial, waste of<br>
> post-orbital CPU cycles; not the conversion itself, but the<br>
> distraction from understanding whatever meaning the author<br>
> actually tries to get across.<br>
> <br>
> If someone with authority (and authorisation) could and<br>
> would please write and run a script and convert all "can<br>
> not" -> "cannot" in all OTP strings, binaries and comments?<br>
> This will introduce errors, as there actually are a few,<br>
> rare correct "can not"s, but it will correct about 9 times<br>
> more of wrong ones that really need to be "cannot".<br>
> <br>
> At least in the doc strings?<br>
> <br>
> Please?<br>
> <br>
> Michael<br>
> <br>
> -- <br>
> <br>
> Time is not money, but money is time: life-time people have<br>
> spent transforming their environment.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> erlang-questions mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:erlang-questions@erlang.org" target="_blank">erlang-questions@erlang.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
erlang-questions mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:erlang-questions@erlang.org" target="_blank">erlang-questions@erlang.org</a><br>
<a href="http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions</a><br>
</blockquote></div>