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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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".

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.

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).

Also, this one should be "effect" anyway, as it is a noun.

-Peff



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux