On 22/05/2021 23:48, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > Language is understood bit by bit. To properly understand the sentences > that follow you first need to understand the sentences that preceed. Except you can't deliberately chop and butcher mentioned sentences in order to "understand" them in isolation, as the meaning is largely determined by context - and yes, the following sentences as well. You focus on seeing the trees, but you're missing the forest. > I know what you said in the rest of the message, which is precisely why > it does not follow, and since you ignored my argument, let me state it > with logic symbols for the record. > > It is reasonable to configure certain software such as a text editor > to use color or other ANSI attributes sparingly (such as the reverse > attribute for a status bar) > > We extract part of the message: > > It is reasonable to configure a text editor to use color sparingly > > The first sentence implies the second, no information is changed. > > --- > > You interpret that as: > > It is reasonable to allow the user to configure a text editor to use > color sparingly > > This is obviously a different sentence. You introduced a part that was > not there. > > Now we use logic symbols to transform your sentence: > > p = the user configures a text editor to use color sparingly > q = it is reasonable to allow the user > > This is what you said: if p -> q. The contraposition is: ~q -> ~p. > > Therefore you said: > > It is not reasonable to allow the user to configure a text editor to > not use color sparingly. > > This is a fact. > > What you said doesn't make sense. > > --- > > This what no-color.org said: > > It is reasonable to configure a text editor to use color sparingly > > By doing the same contraposition as above we get that it's the same as: > > It is not reasonale to configure a text editor to not use color > sparingly. > > Or in other words. > > It is not reasonable to configure a text editor to use colors heavily. > > If it's the developers doing that, then that statement is correct. > > This is my interpretation. My interpretation holds to scrutiny; yours > does not. > > They meant the developers. They are not trying to tell users what to do. > > Cheers. You are overthinking the whole thing (or the piece(s) you focused on, in fact missing the thing as a whole completely), making it unnecessarily complicated for yourself. The NO_COLOR[1] homepage text, read in its entirety and even if not perfect, seems clear enough for everyone who wants to understand it. I'm sorry if it's not clear for you, I'm afraid I can't help any further. And while I find your armchair analysis amusing, you'll pardon me for not taking any more part in it as, unfortunately, I don't have that much time at my hands to waste. Cheers, Buga -- [1]: https://no-color.org/
