Re: [PLUG] [OT] waiting for a socket/event vs. waiting for a socket/event

["K.S. Bhaskar" <bhaskar@bhaskars.com>]

Thanks all for your replies. Here is the policy I formulated for our
user documentation:

1. Wait for events (but not for sockets). Events are things that
happen. Sockets are places where events happen, akin to a door. So
you can't wait for a door (unless you are building a house), but you
can wait for someone to walk through the door.

2. Avoid the construct "waiting on a socket" (or a device) by
rephrasing as best as we can to avoid the need for such a construct.
Where such rephrasing would make the wording awkward or obfuscate the
meaning, the documentation can "wait on a socket" but we really should
avoid the construct.

Regards
-- Bhaskar

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:57 PM, K.S. Bhaskar <bhaskar@bhaskars.com> wrote:
>
> One of my pet peeves about colloquial American English is the use of "waiting on" when what is meant is "waiting for" - as in "I'll be waiting on you downstairs" to which I am often tempted to reply "Thank you, but I don't intend to dine downstairs."
>
> Does a process wait for a socket/event or does a process wait on a socket/event?
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> -- Bhaskar
>
> --
> Windows does to computers what smoking does to humans



--
Windows does to computers what smoking does to humans
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug