It wasn't me who raised the flame.
Thus no flame has been risen, has it?
I appreciate your explanation and I took the liberty to oppose it to mine. Which is equally as valid as yours
Not valid in the sense of being the correct interpretation of the text though.
Bad parameter... bla bla. Expected an object containing the _m_delete method.
perhaps use 'implementing' instead of 'containing'.
Sounds ok. Perhaps the "an" can be dropped, it's usually left out for brevity since it doesn't add any information.
/ Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!)
Previous text:
2003-02-11 00:45: Subject: Re: Implicit vs. explicit type casting with Pike
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 12:35:06AM +0100, Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!) @ Pike (-) developers forum scribbled:
I'm explaining the intended interpretation to you, as you asked me to do. It has nothing to do with opinion, nor with weaponry.
It wasn't me who raised the flame. I appreciate your explanation and I took the liberty to oppose it to mine. Which is equally as valid as yours - that proved the message is ambiguous.
If you want opinions, presenting alternative wordings to have options about would be a good place to start. I see you have suggested one already, my opinion on that one is that it's a bit long; do you think you could make it a bit shorter without compromising your clarity goal?
I think so. Let's try this:
Bad parameter... bla bla. Expected an object containing the _m_delete method.
perhaps use 'implementing' instead of 'containing'.
marek
/ Brevbäraren