Re: [PATCH] doc: replace jargon word "impact" with "effect"/"affect"

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 12:08:55PM +0200, Michal Suchánek wrote:

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 04:06:56AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:

quoted

Michal Suchánek wrote:

quoted

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 12:13:08AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:

quoted

Michal Suchánek wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

You can use 'affect' or 'impact' and it generally conveys the same
meaning.

That's clearly *your* opinion, but that's not my opinon.

I'm not arguing between blue and red; I'm arguing between water-based and
lead-based paint.

No, you are not. There is no clear problem with 'impact', either.

There's no clear problem *to you*.

quoted

So if somebody comes along later and says that they find 'affect'
confusing and impact should be used does that need to be accepted as
well, back and forth ad nauseam?

No. When that happens we start a new discussion, and see where that
leads.

quoted

quoted

The difference may not matter to you, but it matters to me.

If it's bikeshedding to you, and it "gnerally conveys the same meaning",
why are you arguing against?

So if 'for' loops and 'while' loops generally convey the same meaning
should we accept patches that replace some 'for' loops with 'while'
lopps or vice versa?

You are not answering my question, and you are providing an irrelevant
example.

I don't see any general difference between 'for' loops and 'while'
loops. But I do see a difference between 'impact' and 'affect'.

You are starting from the premise that $a is no different than $b.
That's your opinion, and I'm not disregarding it. But other people (e.g.
Varun and me) do have a different opinion.

Again, to make it crystal clear; you opine that $a and $b are equal, we
opine that they are not. We don't disregard your opinion, you do
disregard ours.

I don't know how much clearer I can make this.

And changes to git should be based on fact, not opinion.

I don't know how much clearer I can state it.

Thanks

Michal