[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Geiser-users] Corrections for Geiser/doc/parens.texi

From: Mark Harig
Subject: Re: [Geiser-users] Corrections for Geiser/doc/parens.texi
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:07:05 -0500

> --- Texinfo source:
> @cindex switching schemes
> If for some reason you're not happy with the Scheme implementation
> Geiser has assigned to your file, you can change it with @kbd{C-c
> and probably take a look at @address@hidden,,the
> subsection}, the previous subsection} to make sure that Geiser
> get confused again.
> Correction:
> 1) The anchor that this paragraph's reference refers to appears to
>   the same section that the reader has just read, that is,
> `switching-repl-buff'. Another anchor is needed near the
> of the subsubheading "How Geiser associates a REPL...," so that
>   cross-reference can refer to it instead, correct?
> 2) The clause that began with "...and probably take a look..." does
>   not have a subject: "...and you should probably take a look..."

I'm not sure about this: the sentence takes the form "You can do A and
probably B", which elides the subject it its second clause and sounds
correct to me: isn't that the case? Or perhaps you think the wording
not clear enough?

"You can do A, and probably do B."

"You can do A, and probably should do B."

"You can do A, and you probably should do B."

The first construction, above, says that the subject may do A, but only
might be able to do B, correct?  That is, it is saying something that is
not intended -- that the subject can (only) probably do B, but he might
not be able to do B.

The second construction is, I think, more what is intended.  The third
construction is my preference because the 'and' clause is in fact a
sub-clause, not part of a compound 'and', correct?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]