Skip to main content
23 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 13, 2017 at 12:38 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/
S Jan 14, 2013 at 12:27 history edited CommunityBot
insert duplicate link
S Jan 14, 2013 at 12:27 history closed MetaEd
Matt E. Эллен
Urbycoz
Kris
tchrist
exact duplicate
Jan 14, 2013 at 11:49 history edited RegDwigнt CC BY-SA 3.0
edited title
Jan 14, 2013 at 11:24 answer added Jon Hanna timeline score: 3
Jan 14, 2013 at 10:53 history edited RegDwigнt CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 6 characters in body; edited title
Jan 14, 2013 at 7:26 review Close votes
Jan 14, 2013 at 10:53
Nov 16, 2011 at 5:41 comment added Mateen Ulhaq Try this, catch.
Dec 2, 2010 at 19:43 vote accept aaronasterling
Dec 2, 2010 at 19:39 comment added Konrad Rudolph @aaron: (re Jon’s suggestion) that’s in fact how I would handle it.
Dec 2, 2010 at 19:18 comment added aaronasterling @Konrad Rudolph. Indeed. Looking at my previous comment, I'd say that you're more able than me this morning. Great comic. I too think that you might be in the minority. As a member of the minority, what do you think of Jon Purdy's suggestion of putting keywords in quotes and pluralizing that normally? Do you think "try"s Looks alright?
Dec 2, 2010 at 19:08 comment added Konrad Rudolph @aaron: that was my point: it looks horrible to my eyes. But I actually agree with you: it’s more important how it looks than that it conforms to a set of arbitrary rules that some Latin-obsessed 17th century introverts have decided upon. And I think that I’m probably in the minority with my taste.
Dec 2, 2010 at 18:59 comment added aaronasterling @Hellion. 1) It's too long in my source and I would like to avoid doing something storing it in a string and then passing it. 2) I'm curious about how to pluralize these and even if I do end up splitting it a across lines, (which I'm currently doing) I'd want to know how I would have pluralized it. It seems weird that there would be non-mass nouns that can't be pluralized.
Dec 2, 2010 at 18:55 comment added aaronasterling @Martha - Excellent idea.
Dec 2, 2010 at 18:46 comment added aaronasterling @Konrad Rudolph - From the wiki - apostrophes are used whe their omission would "leave things ambiguous or inelegant." In this case, I lean towards the inelegant clause. At any rate, I'm much more concerned with how this looks to the eyes able English speakers than in any artificial 'rules' which some elite might or might not have written down :)
Dec 2, 2010 at 18:39 comment added aaronasterling @Colin Fine - That question certainly does a fine job of answering my question for being a duplicate. As I pointed out - it doesn't.
Dec 2, 2010 at 17:10 comment added Marthaª Is "no implementation for..." a technical term? Because on the face of it, I'd write something like Global-level 'try' is not implemented.
Dec 2, 2010 at 15:44 comment added Hellion Speaking to it from a programming perspective, what on earth is "too long" about a simple 50-character sentence? The original is straightforward and understandable to your target audience; why do you need to shorten it further?
Dec 2, 2010 at 15:07 answer added user597 timeline score: 5
Dec 2, 2010 at 12:07 comment added Konrad Rudolph Whatever else, but the apostrophe is just horribly wrong there. It’s neither a possessive nor an omission. But see also (Wikipedia) Apostrophe: use in forming certain plurals.
Dec 2, 2010 at 7:36 answer added Jon Purdy timeline score: 7
Dec 2, 2010 at 6:39 answer added VonC timeline score: 7
Dec 2, 2010 at 6:25 history asked aaronasterling CC BY-SA 2.5