Skip to content
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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 20, 2018

Conversation

annainfo
Copy link
Contributor

Make text style more scientific, replace "we"

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),
Copy link
Member

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".

Copy link
Contributor Author

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.

Copy link
Contributor

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.

Copy link
Contributor Author

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?

@StefanKarpinski
Copy link
Member

Thank you for the doc PR!

@StefanKarpinski StefanKarpinski merged commit ae0738e into JuliaLang:master Aug 20, 2018
KristofferC pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 21, 2018
@KristofferC KristofferC mentioned this pull request Aug 21, 2018
KristofferC pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 8, 2018
KristofferC pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 8, 2018
@KristofferC KristofferC added docs This change adds or pertains to documentation and removed backport pending 1.0 labels Sep 27, 2018
KristofferC pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 11, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
docs This change adds or pertains to documentation
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants