Timeline for What would you call an operation you can undo?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 10, 2016 at 1:12 | comment | added | Paulw11 | Given that the context is in computer systems, there is a significant semantic difference between "undo" and "revoke" when you consider the state of a system. When an operation is "undone" the state of the system is reverted to the point before the operation was performed. So, if you delete some text in a Word document, then undo the delete, the text isn't re-typed, rather the state is reverted so that the deletion never happened. If I issue someone a driver's license and then revoke it, the fact is still that they had a license. If I undo it then it is as if they never held one. | |
| Jun 10, 2016 at 0:15 | comment | added | Cave Johnson | @MartinSmith I have to side with FatalSleep here. To me revoke means to invalidate something that is ongoing or about to happen, or to invalidate a statement, not to reverse an action that already happened. I also searched for the phrase "irrevocable damage" and it didn't seem very common to me. In fact, most of the results are from a quote from a politician. | |
| Jun 9, 2016 at 23:03 | history | edited | origimbo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jun 9, 2016 at 9:19 | comment | added | Martin Smith | @FatalSleep the phrase "irrevocable damage" means damage that cannot be repaired. Not damage that wasn't prevented before it occurred. | |
| Jun 8, 2016 at 16:28 | comment | added | FatalSleep |
@MartinSmith semantically to revoke is to deny change, not to undo change. By denying change you don't allow change to take place, by undoing change you're reversing the change and the effects thereof. So it doesn't make sense to think of revoke and undo as directly interchangeable.
|
|
| Jun 8, 2016 at 16:03 | comment | added | Martin Smith | @FatalSleep you're just asserting something to be true with no basis. The phrase "irrevocable damage" is very common and doesn't tie in with your assertion. In databases you can revoke permissions after granting them or a security certificate can be revoked after issuing it. | |
| Jun 8, 2016 at 15:59 | comment | added | FatalSleep | @MartinSmith explain how I'm wrong then. | |
| Jun 8, 2016 at 15:44 | comment | added | Martin Smith | @FatalSleep you're wrong. | |
| Jun 8, 2016 at 12:44 | comment | added | FatalSleep | In that case revoke doesn't work, you can't revoke an operation that's already been completed. You can only revoke an operation that is already in action. If the operation has been completed, then it has to be undone. | |
| Jun 8, 2016 at 12:42 | comment | added | FatalSleep |
No, this is an issue with the OP. In GMail when you click undo, two things happen, you cancel sending the email, but you undo the send operation. GMail doesn't send until after the undo message disappears, so an email can't technically be undone, rather cancelled. In which case the OP isn't referring to undoing sending the email, but rather undoing the operation of clicking send to trigger sending the email.
|
|
| Jun 8, 2016 at 12:04 | comment | added | origimbo | @FatalSleep I'm confused. Isn't your description of revoke pretty much exactly what the original poster describes? | |
| Jun 8, 2016 at 11:23 | comment | added | FatalSleep |
This doesn't fit the context. To cancel or revoke is not to undo, rather it's to cease doing or to stop before doing. Doesn't really fit the context of cleaning up the damages already done, e.g. undo.
|
|
| Jun 8, 2016 at 10:09 | history | answered | origimbo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |