3 ms·
> of course every developer doesn't need to know the contents of the article that follows. Things every developer should know about English, part 1: why word o
by wongarsu 3y ago
> of course every developer doesn't need to know the contents of the article that follows.
Things every developer should know about English, part 1: why word order matters in negation /s
Obviously you meant "not every developer needs to know" instead of "every developer doesn't need to know", but I see this switch so often lately that I'm beginning to wonder if it's a dialect thing (similar to double negative implying a positive to some and an emphasis of the negative to others)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- a1369209993 3y agoActually, that seems to be a legitimate precedence ambiguity. The probably more common way to parse/interpret it is: > [Foreach developer D, D] needs to know this. > [Foreach developer D, D] doesn't need to know this. (No developers.) But you could also have: > [The logical conjuction of all developers[0]] needs to know this. > [The logical conjuction of all developers] doesn't need to know this. (Not all developers.) The former convention is clearly better unless I've missed something rather significant, but inherently broken features in a number of programming languages (eg perl 6 'junctive' operators) suggest the latter is well-established as a thing that exists. 0: ie, a linguistic fiction that has only those properties / needs only those things that are common to every developer.