Re: About /dev/sr impatience with automatic tray loading
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 14:15:10 -0600
- From: David Wright <deblis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: About /dev/sr impatience with automatic tray loading
On Wed 12 Dec 2018 at 06:27:06 (-0500), Dan Ritter wrote:
> Erik Christiansen wrote:
> > On 11.12.18 09:44, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > mick crane wrote:
> > > > On 2018-12-10 20:02, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> > > > > For the purpose of sr_drive_status(), the loop is really inappropriate.
> > > > > This function shall obtain the drive status and not wait until the
> > > > > status of the medium is decided.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > completely off the topic but I have noticed that people whose first language
> > > > might not be english use
> > > > "shall" as apposed to "will" or "should". It seems a little bit old
> > > > fashioned but maybe it isn't.
> > >
> > > The English use it more than Americans do.
> > >
> > > "Shall" has a connotation of ordering future action. Americans
> > > nearly always prefer "should".
> > Here down under, my exposure to "shall" over the last four decades has
> > primarily been in communications products specifications, where it meant
> > "must" as far as we the system designers and implementers were concerned.
> > "Should" would not be an adequate substitute, I think, where failure to
> > comply is breach of contract.
> Indeed, in legal and technical language, "shall" and "will" are orders
> for compliance. In ordinary speech and writing, though, "You shall take
> the recycling bin to the street" vs "You should take the recycling bin
> to the street" -- Americans will never say the former. Well, I
> would, but ...
I think it's very dependent on time and place. Looking at the "shall
and will" wiki page, I was brought up (English, 1950s) with the
so-called traditional prescriptive grammar rules where the 1st person
is treated differently.
You can avoid the problem by contracting both to "'ll", but that
doesn't work too well for objects. Perhaps one day "'ll" will take on
a life of its own, like "'ve" (spelled "of") has.
One thing on that wiki page did surprise me—that "shan't" is rarely
used in N America, and dwindling elsewhere. I thought every child
shouted "Shan't!" when they reached a certain age. "Won't!" is such
a poor substitute, starting as it does with a w.
As for legal documents, it's perhaps best left to the lawyers: big
cases have hinged on things like shall, the Oxford comma, etc.