0

Abstruse algorithms have been derived for, and implemented in, superfluous software --- correct? readable? better with or without commas?

1

Yes, this is correct and works both with and without the commas. The use of commas would slightly alter the meaning by conveying that 'implemented in' is mentioned in passing, but not of equal importance to 'derived for'.

About verbs sharing an object, see also:

About comma usage for parentheses (or bracketing comma), see also:

| improve this answer | |
  • Hello, ATJ. Well done on finding previous answers, but the idea is to have a single and thus (hopefully) easily searchable database of answers on English Usage, not to provide answers to every repeat of a question. We close-vote on 'duplicate' grounds. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 1 at 15:40
  • @Edwin - fair enough. I admit I would have just posted this as a comment to the OP, but I don't have high enough privileges to do that yet. Would you recommend taking down my answer? – ATJ Jun 1 at 17:40
  • No; the comment above will hopefully decourager les autres. // As an aside, a reasonable candidate for a parenthetical with zero punctuation. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 1 at 18:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.