Paul Prescod wrote, on 09 February 2000 16:34:
"Tony J Ibbs (Tibs)" wrote:
Note that the second usage of the word in the doc string is *not* a candidate for cross referencing. Given the nature of the english language (I can't speak for others) such multiple binding of meaning for a single word is common.
Okay, but what is the real cost of the mis-identification?
Erm - it's wrong?[1] But seriously, if I'm reading a document and come across a cross reference, is it *really* too much to ask that it be relevant? I know I'm a pedant (well, of some sort), but this is text that's meant to be *helpful* to people, and if it consistently contains (or may contain) misleading cross references, then that engenders distrust of the text - one never knows whether it will be worth *following* a reference (I can hear it now - "drat, that *!@X&! has cocked up their referencing again - I thought I'd find something *useful* there!"). Also, it's pride - if I'm writing documentation in a doc string, then it's MY text, and I don't want it to be mucked up by an (otherwise) useful tool. Putting in *misleading* references would be such mucking up. As for misleadingness - there *are* words in the english language that can have entirely opposite, and certainly antagonistic, meanings in different contexts. If the misreference in such a circumstance, life could get truly confusing. Tibs [1] The pedant in me wants to leave it at that, on the grounds that the rest is trivially derived from this, but since Paul asked I guess it *does* need explanation... -- Tony J Ibbs (Tibs) http://www.tibsnjoan.demon.co.uk/ .. Haskell is the most Pythonic of all the languages that are entirely .. unlike Python <0.9 wink> (Tim Peters) My views! Mine! Mine! (Unless Laser-Scan ask nicely to borrow them.)