On 05 July 2006 12:48, Nuno Lopes wrote: > No way!!!! > > We cannot start breaking translators' work. Anyway, what's > the problem with > contractions? When I studied English (British) I learned that > contractions weren't so formal, but they aren't wrong per se. > > Any English native speaker correct me if I'm wrong.
As a former long-time technical editor, I'd say you're not wrong but it very much depends on context and meaning. In this case, I'd agree with the change as it shifts the emphasis of the sentence on to the very important "not", thus making it harder to misread the sentence. It's also a fairly formal definition of the return value, so a contraction is (slightly) less good on that score too. > ----- Original Message ----- > > OOI, should all contractions be removed? > > > > I did a quick check on the entire phpdoc/en directory. > > > > Looking for aren't, can't, shouldn't, won't and wouldn't. > > > > Found 167 occurrences. > > > > Increased that to the entire phpdoc directory and got 362. > > > > I can easily correct the phpdoc/en ones and provide a patch. > > > > Should I? > > > > And what about the other files > > > > Regards, > > > > Richard Quadling. > > > > > > Horst Schirmeier wrote: > > > - and what the returned value may look like. Statements that > > > aren't listed - will return &false; > > > + and what the returned value may look like. Statements that > > > are not listed + will return &false;. > > > </para> > > > </refsect1> Cheers! Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Ford, Electronic Information Services Adviser, Learning Support Services, Learning & Information Services, JG125, James Graham Building, Leeds Metropolitan University, Headingley Campus, LEEDS, LS6 3QS, United Kingdom Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +44 113 283 2600 extn 4730 Fax: +44 113 283 3211 To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm
