Rick McGowan <email@example.com> writes:
> I think that unfortunately both Hoon Kim and Jungshik Shin I think have
> *entirely* mis-interpreted the text. The text says:
> U3.0> for example, lines may be broken either at spaces(as in Latin
> U3.0> text) or U3.0 on ideographic boundaries (as in Chinese).
> The word "or" on the second line would never be interpreted as an "exclusive
> or", it is an "inclusive or". In "C Language" syntax, it means "A|B"; it
> does not mean "A^B".
> In that light, some of their previous comments should probably be re-examined.
Pardon for coming in late, but I only rarely manage to empty my mailbox
for this list (some 140 unread right now).
Anyway, the "or" you mention does not appear there by itself. It is
coupled with the "either" on the line above. And "either or" often
means an exlusive or. In less exact everyday talk, "either or" can
often be inclusive, but in a technical text I would suggest that such
usage should be avoided.
I can't speak for our Korean friends, but possibly had the "either"
never slipped in, their confusion would never have arised.
-- Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:00 EDT