On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 at 18:01, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> 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
