Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bweitzman 4146 days ago
I don't think the distinction between exhaustive and non-exhaustive constituents is something that most people would pick up on.

Using overly precise wordage that not everybody understands is just as bad as not being precise enough. In fact, it might even be worse: if you detect some ambiguity, you can ask for clarification. If you don't know the difference in words, you can't even tell that you don't know and might interpret the sentence incorrectly.
2 comments
rayiner 4146 days ago
> I don't think the distinction between exhaustive and non-exhaustive constituents is something that most people would pick up on.

I imagine this sentence made a lot of programmers and lawyers twitch.

link
dctoedt 4146 days ago
>> I don't think the distinction between exhaustive and non-exhaustive constituents is something that most people would pick up on.

> I imagine this sentence made a lot of programmers and lawyers twitch.

Patent lawyers especially. In a patent claim, the difference between comprising and consisting of can be crucial. [1]

[1] http://www.bios.net/daisy/patentlens/2618.html

link
bweitzman 4146 days ago
Programmers and lawyers are not most people.
link
jameshart 4146 days ago
Which is why the edits this guy has been making have generally been to eliminate the 'is comprised of' usage, not to replace it with 'comprises', but to replace it with clearer, unambiguous forms.
link