-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update integers-and-floating-point-numbers.md #28744
Conversation
Make text style more scientific, replace "we"
@@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ UInt128: [0,340282366920938463463374607431768211455] | |||
``` | |||
|
|||
The values returned by [`typemin`](@ref) and [`typemax`](@ref) are always of the given argument | |||
type. (The above expression uses several features we have yet to introduce, including [for loops](@ref man-loops), | |||
type. (The above expression uses several features that yet have to be introduced, including [for loops](@ref man-loops), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am not sure this is necessarily better. But the sentence construction is weird. Should be "features that have yet to be introduced".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agree with changing to "that have yet to be introduced" (Google gives "that yet have to": 79K, "that+have+yet+to" 25M)
Re removing "we":
Precedence: The most seen style for descriptive text in English might be the one from Wikipedia. The encyclopedic articles don't contain "we" outside citations.
Logic: Technically, "we" in the Julia manual is undefined. Who is "we"? Furthermore, does the reader care about that those behind "we" introduce the features, or is it sufficient that the features are introduced? If the latter is true, then "we" is superfluous.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There are arguments in favour of a less passive voice, too. See this page for some interesting aspects to the discussion:
However, the pronoun “we” is now generally considered acceptable in contexts where it means the author and reader together, or less often, the author with the reader looking on.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The place you link to, claims the citation comes from http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~may/VIGRE/VIGRE2010/piiUJM2up.pdf
You mean that is more authoritative than the style of the English Wikipedia?
Re "There are arguments in favour of a less passive voice, too." - Which?
s/yet have/have yet
Thank you for the doc PR! |
(cherry picked from commit ae0738e)
(cherry picked from commit ae0738e)
(cherry picked from commit ae0738e)
(cherry picked from commit ae0738e)
Make text style more scientific, replace "we"