From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F54C1F4B4 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 00:06:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S245140AbhDGAG1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Apr 2021 20:06:27 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56642 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233071AbhDGAG0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Apr 2021 20:06:26 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-x22f.google.com (mail-oi1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22f]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B72A3C06174A for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 17:06:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id x2so16996425oiv.2 for ; Tue, 06 Apr 2021 17:06:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=n4QnWDp3I1s8x/5asleWWimG4KYY250kz8+nBlz0DGA=; b=mAr3AceW8vISW2haEKEJada/vmZLB7HwSu0kZ6YWdOF+le4S133LP25Xo69L4Enit5 wgakDCA2pBa2exCx3UwIdF9aDnnWbK3dOljoJEbBY7avchdzRooCmrDfkY9OE06kji+l bvCZRGUoht1xNjAGgImAyQW87WnqvfbifaspZwzMOo/n3vWOJQYtoCr4o9c4Luw5PG6d YQJU8DYadiLsQ8mujNt07ASBAxVxPsQoqYOZYbP9N/KF3+xla/cngVkITUlSin2E5Ajn rl0HVcWUNKoOCOGlM7WeIzeg2Xfp0N+fFO7thoulswdlmU+wlsXTFD0GHcVijCaBnuI5 BmCA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=n4QnWDp3I1s8x/5asleWWimG4KYY250kz8+nBlz0DGA=; b=hj9qPw51fx/OJDNNJ4H4HAWFRkUv6jFAh2qfJswAHyt5nRZYnNpS1HTPmehS34L8cO /FekmlqsjpjBROpRRUsgMsQRxnO2XFLsFOyhodyx8wl6cF3uL/nlLrYLJpA4snzN49Pr 92jcvLtT7eaWjtxMwjkeIhROTCIiIKNUjGGKSoHtSvFANUvGS9LAgMs4OHfYXJy3zocR rB9Xbqmy8TdIiUa2mQ0Px6ZRQnkDNvY2pJmFmlchukJluS9pt9awa/qU7VgvTgrs8pLU GmL9XXLg+gD+lNGEur0x2/ydn3loRHfXJOMwfjXR0PqYSYNOaqUBqw/FWmX2WMsDOVww Vxgg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530BMvWSAaPbLxkzffY+iZLmnq2qxh63H9j+wHoSFBi8uG3+P7Xp jBXmSJQxkUwMrOnGzf9zN/tMu1g0bitHrLuKpZU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx9GwFeNciQjmKxXLggBILdkz7Sx9/ANwwhwWtSzY3YWuTPj475uoBTgeswU787X64dpmfhUeSrQPFfipTBrPw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:483:: with SMTP id z3mr307049oid.166.1617753974544; Tue, 06 Apr 2021 17:06:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210406092440.GZ6564@kitsune.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: From: Varun Varada Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 19:06:03 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: replace jargon word "impact" with "effect"/"affect" To: Jeff King Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Michal_Such=C3=A1nek?= , git@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 at 18:01, Jeff King wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 02:36:27PM -0500, Varun Varada wrote: > > > > while using "will not impact" in an incorrect or unclear way may be a > > > problem the word "impact" in itself is not "jargon". > > > > The word means "to have a strong or marked effect on" (v.) and "a > > strong or market influence" (n.) when used figuratively; it is not > > synonymous with "affect" and "effect", respectively, as shown even by > > all of the entries you've cited. Using it as such is the incorrect > > part, so those are the instances I've changed in the diff. > > Er, is that true? From Michal's definitions: > > > > From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 : > > [...] > > > 2. To affect or influence, especially in a significant or > > It literally uses "affect" to define it. The "especially significant" > does not apply to many, but I don't think that makes it necessarily > wrong to use impact to mean "affect". I was drawing attention to the "especially significant" bit and the like being there in all the entries. I'm not sure about these dictionaries, but the definition is hyperbolic / violent / shocking in every reputable dictionary out there: the Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, and Collins. > > Likewise: > > > > From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) : > > [...] > > > v 1: press or wedge together; pack together > > > 2: have an effect upon; "Will the new rules affect me?" [syn: > > > affect, impact, bear upon, bear on, touch on, > > > touch] > > That is likewise listing "impact" and "affect" as synonyms. > > I do agree the word is over-used in some forms of writing, but I don't > find anything at all confusing or wrong about the uses that you changed > in your patch. I am a native speaker of English. I'm open to the > argument that non-native speakers may be more confused by the word. But > this seems like mostly a style preference thing, and I'd generally > prefer to leave the contributions and style of the original writers > intact unless there is a good reason not to. I am a native English speaker as well, and there were multiple places where I had to think twice about what the sentences mean. I agree with your sentiment about leaving stylistic preferences intact, but this is actually a semantic one. And given that there is a perfectly good alternative that doesn't have this confusion / jargon status, I wanted to make the change to improve it, especially where it says that in the output of the git command (`git checkout` when in detached HEAD mode). > > Such changes are doubly unwanted in cases like this: > > > --- a/compat/nedmalloc/malloc.c.h > > +++ b/compat/nedmalloc/malloc.c.h > > @@ -2952,7 +2952,7 @@ static size_t traverse_and_check(mstate m); > > #endif /* (FOOTERS && !INSECURE) */ > > > > > > -/* In gcc, use __builtin_expect to minimize impact of checks */ > > +/* In gcc, use __builtin_expect to minimize affect of checks */ > > #if !INSECURE > > #if defined(__GNUC__) && __GNUC__ >= 3 > > #define RTCHECK(e) __builtin_expect(e, 1) > > where the text is imported from another project, and we'd prefer to stay > as close to their version as possible (e.g., to avoid unnecessary > conflicts when pulling in new versions). That's fair; I wasn't aware that this was being pulled directly from another project. I can change this back. > > Also, this one should be "effect" anyway, as it is a noun. This seems to have slipped through, as I used a text search tool. > > -Peff