Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #3288

Re: OT "sic"? (was Re: Binary Search)

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:11:19 +0000, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:

> In article
> <e380412e-ebc2-440d-96f4-4fc814c6f49b@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Lew
>  <lew@lewscanon.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 9:53 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> > In article <inielt$uo...@news.albasani.net>, Lew 
>> > <no...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
>> > > Mike Schilling wrote:
>> > > > Fair point. This was simpler before generics, when the Comparator
>> > > > could accept either K's [sic] or T's [sic] :-)
>> >
>> > "[sic]"?
>> >
>> > My understanding is that while it's less common than it used to be to
>> > form the plurals of multiletter acronyms [*] with apostrophes (e.g.,
>> > "CDs" rather than "CD's"), apostrophes are still advised for forming
>> > plurals of single letters, to avoid ambiguity in the case of A and I
>> > (and possibly some others I'm not thinking of).
>> >
>> >
>> But not "K" or "T".
> 
> Eh.  I guess my thinking is that it's simpler to have one rule for
> plurals of single letters, rather than having one rule for the ones
> where there might be ambiguity and another rule for the others.

How about this rule: put quotation marks. "K"s rather than Ks. "A"s is 
then obviously different from As and "I"s from Is.

Quotation marks are, after all, the standard way of indicating that you 
are referring to letters or words themselves rather than whatever they'd 
normally refer to.

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Binary Search Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-04-03 18:50 +0100
  Re: Binary Search "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-03 12:01 -0700
    Re: Binary Search Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-04-03 22:39 +0100
      Re: Binary Search "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-03 16:37 -0700
        Re: Binary Search Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-04-06 15:24 -0400
          OT "sic"? (was Re: Binary Search) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm@myrealbox.com> - 2011-04-11 13:53 +0000
            Re: OT "sic"? (was Re: Binary Search) Lew <lew@lewscanon.com> - 2011-04-11 11:45 -0700
              Re: OT "sic"? (was Re: Binary Search) Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2011-04-11 14:11 -0500
                Re: OT "sic"? (was Re: Binary Search) Lew <lew@lewscanon.com> - 2011-04-11 13:48 -0700
                Re: OT "sic"? (was Re: Binary Search) Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-04-11 22:16 +0100
                Re: OT "sic"? (was Re: Binary Search) Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-04-11 17:54 -0400
                Re: OT "sic"? (was Re: Binary Search) Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-04-11 23:35 +0100
                Re: OT "sic"? (was Re: Binary Search) Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2011-04-11 21:41 -0500
              Re: OT "sic"? (was Re: Binary Search) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm@myrealbox.com> - 2011-04-14 10:11 +0000
                Re: OT "sic"? (was Re: Binary Search) Jerry Gerrone <scuzwalla@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 20:12 -0700
                Re: OT "sic"? (was Re: Binary Search) Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-04-26 22:53 +0100

csiph-web