Re: Definition of "should" seems inconsistent with idea of "deprecated"

David Gibson <[email protected]> Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:32:37 +1100

Newsgroups	org.kernel.vger.devicetree-spec
Message-ID	<ZTW/JU/fjdgYRkmo@zatzit>

On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 05:08:48AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023, David Gibson wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 07:03:56AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > >
> > >   Reading DTSpec v0.4, near the beginning:
> > >
> > > "The word should is used to indicate that among several possibilities
> > > one is recommended as particularly suitable, without mentioning or
> > > excluding others; or that a certain course of action is preferred but
> > > not necessarily required; or that (in the negative form) a certain
> > > course of action is deprecated but not prohibited (should equals is
> > > recommended that)."
> > >
> > >   It seems contradictory to suggest that "should" implies
> > > "recommended" but, in the negative sense, it can also support
> >
> > I believe that by "in the negative form", it means when something says
> > "should not"..
> >
> > > "deprecated", which typically suggests something that is *not*
> > > recommended but is nonetheless acceptable.
> >
> > ..in which case being similar to "deprecated" makes sense.
> >
> > I will agree that saying "in the negative form", parenthesized,
> > amongst a cluster of interacting clauses is probably not a great way
> > of expressing this, and it might be clearer to explicitly give a
> > meaning to "should not".
> 
>   Yes, I see that I misread it somewhat and it's not as bad as I
> thought originally, but it definitely would be clearer if the concept
> of "should not" was combined with the idea of, say:
> 
>   "Should not" means that, even if a particular possibility is
> discouraged or deprecated, it is still acceptable as a viable choice.
> 
>   Or something like that. "in the negative form" is way too wordy for
> saying simply, "should not".

Yeah.  I guess it covers "shouldn't" as well, and maybe there are
other ways of negating the sense of "should" that I'm not thinking of
at the moment.  Not convinced that's a good trade off, though.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)