> First, I agree that the less formal language is becoming more
> acceptable. Some style guides explicitly allow contractions,
> but others advise against them. The technical specifications
> that significant parts of GCC aim to conform to, and those I
> happen to work with the most closely (the C, C++, and POSIX
> standards), avoid them. The IEEE Editorial Style Manual
> recommends against using them. The author of Engineer's Guide
> to Technical Writing, Kenneth Budinski, equates them with slang.
How old are those documents? More recently, see
http://www.plainlanguage.gov/howto/guidelines/bigdoc/writeContract.cfm
https://lawyerist.com/61487/is-it-time-for-contractions-in-legal-writing/
The latter references other documents, which advocate for more use of
contractions even in formal writing.
> I personally don't feel too strongly about it, but the change
> seems like an opportunity to improve not just the style of
> the manual but also increase its consistency. I could see
> one being indifferent to such changes but I have trouble
> understanding how they could be viewed as the wrong direction.
> What is your rationale against it and what would you consider
> the right direction for the manual?
I think it's the wrong direction because I'd be in favor of gradually
*introducing* contractions into to the manual instead of a change that
eliminates them. I wouldn't be against a change that went in the other
direction (used contractions consistently), but it would be good a large
change, so I'm not advocating for doing that, but just instead using
contractions in all new material and when modifying old material for
other reasons.
