Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Sort char array Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 04:46:33 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 46 Message-ID: <86mudrheg6.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <20191008022725.36fbd95aa45ba185290e5e11@gmail.com> <1q_mF.841756$Zy3.585129@fx33.am4> <20191009020207.b533aa1c6d95f44eb314ffc1@gmail.com> <5alnF.1041354$WI2.353384@fx34.am4> <20191010003208.ff29e87d2de1e17c50f96c74@gmail.com> <20191013213743.84c68aaf89bc1cd6b995db5b@gmail.com> <20191014005637.56bd13f20bceb6f3c4233b09@gmail.com> <86r23f74ep.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87a7a24ufl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <864l06i4zs.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87mudx1vhc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="09129d99e56165cafc27964696c7f4e6"; logging-data="30185"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+9V4dDrSIzHA1iIvPs6N05j/QqgGXeHeg=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:+rUJ54ba/IkPOg05fNl0VykAfxA= sha1:LmbUsgksZB8L6EzN1f4geGLLf4M= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:147169 Ben Bacarisse writes: > Tim Rentsch writes: > >> Ben Bacarisse writes: >> >>> Tim Rentsch writes: >>> >>>> Anton Shepelev writes: >>>> >>>>> Of course, but we were talking specifically about types, >>>>> which comprise one aspect of portability. >>>> >>>> "Comprise" is not the right word here. A whole comprises its >>>> parts or constitutent elements. For example, a zoo comprises its >>>> animals. You might try "form" or "constitute" there: >>> >>> Not this again! There's nothing wrong with Anton's usage. Collins >>> English Dictionary (to name just one) descibes this use of "comprise" >>> and even lists "form" and "constitute" as synonyms for it. >> >> I concede your statement about dictionaries is true: many >> dictionaries give a definition for comprise that allows the above >> construction. My comment however was not about dictionaries but >> about usage and style. People who want to be careful in their >> writing (and I think Anton is one of those) should avoid using >> comprise in the sense it is used above. >> >> To be clear, my comment is not one of fact but of opinion. I >> would add though that it is not just my opinion, but one shared >> by enough serious writers that I think the advice is worth >> taking. > > I've changed my opinion on this. When it really matters, I would now > advise against using comprise in any form unless you know the intended > readership well. > > One usage comes across as stuffy and formal (which is only rarely a good > thing) and there appear to be enough people who think the other usage is > wrong that you can't be sure that one of them won't be reading your > writing. One to avoid, I would say... I mostly agree with you. In most cases "comprise" is better confined to writing in formal English (which incidentally includes the ISO C standard as an example). Since we now mostly agree I will just leave it there.