removing hyphenation from ly adverbs #8054
Conversation
|
Some of these are fine, but some are technical definitions (incompletely defined object, potentially-evaluated) and changes those doesn't seem editorial to me. |
|
How do "potentially-evaluated" and "incompletely-defined object" technically differ from "potentially evaluated" and "incompletely defined object"? |
|
They are terms that have been invented by the Core Working Group and should probably not be changed by the editor without at least checking with CWG. It's not what they mean that matters, it's the fact that they are defined terms which have been chosen specifically. It's not editorial to change them. |
|
I'm not saying they shouldn't be fixed, only that I think a slightly different process should be used to fix them (even if it's just asking CWG to approve the change before merging this). |
| @@ -6996,7 +6996,7 @@ | |||
| of interest, but in a \tcode{forward_list} there is no constant-time way to access a | |||
| preceding element. | |||
| For this reason, \tcode{erase_after} and \tcode{splice_after} | |||
| take fully-open ranges, not semi-open ranges. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is an interesting case: I understand that, in isolation, an adverb qualifies an adjective. But here we're drawing from a coherent family of terms like "half-open", "semi-open", "closed-open", "open-open", "fully-open", "fully-closed" (some of which are synonyms), where there isn't always an adverb as the first part, but it's still useful to have a common style to show that these are all members of the same technical domain, and we don't mean "fully open" in some other, broader sense. ("You've not been fully open about your use of fully-open ranges")
(Not to be confused with "clopen", which is both open and closed at once, and something different :-) )
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In "You've not been fully open about your use of fully-open ranges," the function of fully is still the same in both uses: It's an adverb describing an adjective. With "half-open," you have a compound adjective, but -ly adverbs do not form compound adjectives, even when our terminology would be nicely consistent and tidy if they did.
wg21bot
added
the
needs rebase
Change: remove hyphenation on -ly adverbs in the text (only the text) of the Standard.
Reason: Most common writing style guides omit hyphenation for -ly adverbs; i.e., an -ly adverb + adjective combination does not create a compound adjective.
Chicago Manual of Style, 17th ed., 5.93: "(3) A two-word phrasal adjective that begins with an adverb ending in -ly is not hyphenated {a sharply worded reprimand}"
Chicago Manual of Style, 17th ed., 7.85: "With the exception of proper nouns (such as United States) and compounds formed by an adverb ending in ly plus an adjective, it is never incorrect to hyphenate adjectival compounds before a noun."
New Oxford Style Manual [Oxford Univ Press, 2016], 3.3.3: "Do not hyphenate adjectival compounds where the first element is an adverb ending in -ly"
New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, 5th ed., hyphen: "Never use a hyphen after an adverb ending in ly"
AP Stylebook, 55th ed., hyphen: "No hyphen is needed to link a two-word phrase that includes the adverb very and all adverbs ending in -ly"