Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!newsfeed.freenet.ag!newsfeed.kamp.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: blmblm@myrealbox.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: OT "sic"? (was Re: Binary Search) Date: 11 Apr 2011 13:53:01 GMT Organization: None Lines: 28 Message-ID: <90gfdtFmkU2@mid.individual.net> References: X-Trace: individual.net oTieeWzFg3L68zAjoPyxQQOT7cxiB7iFx9gK2sOV9/fqQtQgM9 X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail Cancel-Lock: sha1:E3QfAy2x96+SaKDsAIDNqds2Gz4= X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:3028 In article , Lew 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). Can you cite any authoritative recommendation for leaving out the apostrophes here? [*] Or initialisms, for the pedantic? [ snip ] > In the simpler way, you compare Ts and Ks willy-nilly, without really saying > so. Sure it works, but it's hidden. [ snip ] -- B. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.