Re: typo in accept-process-output (process.c)

[David Kastrup]

Stephen Berman <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:50:45 -0400 Michael Olson <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>>     So the job only has to be done once, what replacement will people
>>>     be happy with? Personally, I think plain "if" would be just fine,
>>>     except perhaps to the tediously literal-minded.
>>>
>>> In some cases, just "if" is clear.
>>>
>>>     Failing that, "only if".  As a last resort, "if and only if"
>>>     (yuck).
>>>
>>> Where just "if" is not clear, you need to get creative.  Find a
>>> rewrite which is clear.  "If and only if" is ok when you need it, but
>>> since it is a bit longer, you might look for a better method.
>>
>> The conditionals "only if" and "if" are both unidirectional, whereas "if
>> and only if" is bidirectional.  If you want to preserve the logic, it is
>> best to change "iff" to "if and only if".  It's not nearly as gross as
>> changing the meaning would be.
>
> The logic textbook by Kalish and Montague uses "`exactly on condition
> that', and sometimes `just in case', as stylistic variants of `if and
> only if'."

"just in case" is pretty much the worst replacement since it has a
well-established colloquial meaning of "as a precaution against the
improbable event of".

-- 
David Kastrup