Duncan wrote: > You have a point, as the term is used in regular English. However, the > term has a slightly different twist when used in reference to computers by > computer literate users.
Stop there. Of course you're not to know this, but I was working on computer hardware in 1972, and I've been working on, with, for, under, at, in spite of computers ever since. Well, I retired in 1998, but you see my point. [...] > Fast-forward to the present day, and you see this usage in the above > discussion of gcc flags and in your example, "enabling" the numlock. > However, there's still an element of the original and standard English > usage, if you think about it. Just because numlock is "enabled" doesn't > mean there WILL be signals coming from the keyboard on the associated > keys. It only means that if they come, a specific interpretation of them > has been "enabled". Like the old serial protocol, if DTR was "enabled" it > meant any data sent would be interpreted in a specific way. If it was > disabled and the same data was sent, it would be interpreted differently, > in the case of the protocol, causing data to be thrown out and lost. That usage was wrong too, and I hope I never used it. DTR was not enabled, but set. Its state of being set is what enabled other things to happen. Enabling numlock, if there were such a concept, would set it into a state in which I can then press it and get a result. It was in that state before, and no setting or unsetting of numlock will change that as long as the BIOS continues working. > Similarly with gcc, just because a specific optimization is "enabled" > doesn't mean that any code will actually USE that optimization. It only > means that should the opportunity to use the optimization arise, taking > advantage of it is "enabled", where if the optimization were "disabled" > the code that could have taken advantage of that optimization won't. If flag A enables flag B, then flag B can take effect only if flag A is set, but flag B still does not have to be present. Think of them as two inputs to an AND logic gate and you'll see what I mean. > That should make things considerably clearer. It doesn't. > -O<whatever> "enabling" a > particular optimization simply means that it's turned on, same as if you'd > "enabled" that particular optimization individually. However, regardless > of how that optimization is "enabled", just because it /is/ "enabled" > doesn't mean any code will come along that actually can make use of that > optimization, so the original English meaning of the term "enable" is > retained in that sense. No no no no no! This is misuse of the word. The proper word is not 'enabled' but 'set'. > My Dad is a teacher. So was mine, and my mother, and her mother and brother, and I've been told I could have been. Nothing I've said is affected by that. > So... Thanks very much for asking the question! Actually, I didn't ask a question (though I regret saying I needed help - put it down to an excess of politeness); you could say I issued a challenge. If so, it still stands. This use of 'enabled' to mean 'set' is just plain wrong. Sorry if that offends anyone. I don't suppose I can achieve anything with this, so perhaps I'd better can it. -- Rgds Peter. -- gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
