Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
if in parentheses, should be omitted. If such content really is required, then put it in
a separate sentence.
The first stage is the backtracking tokenizer with a two-element retry
buffer. In this stage possible errors include illegal adjacencies as well
as unrecognized tokens; when detected, errors are stored on a stack for
collation into a complete report.
Watch out for fractured “if” expressions.
If the machine is lightly loaded, then response time is acceptable when-
ever the data is on local disks.
If the machine is lightly loaded and data is on local disks, then response
time is acceptable.
Response time is acceptable when the machine is lightly loaded and data is
on local disks.
The first version is poor because the conditions of the “if” have been separated by
the consequent.
It is easy to construct long, winding sentences by, for example, stating a principle,
then qualifying it—a habit that is not necessarily bad, but does often lead to poor
sentence structure—then explaining the qualification, the circumstances in which
it applies, and in effect allowing the sentence to continue to another topic, such as
the ideas underlying the principle, cases in which the qualification does or does not
apply, or material which no longer belongs in the sentence at all, a property that is
arguably true of most of this sentence, which should definitely be revised.
Sometimes longer sentences can be divided by, say, simply replacing an “and” or
a semicolon with a full stop. If there is no particular reason to join two sentences,
keep them separate.
Beware of misplaced modifiers.
We collated the responses from the users, which were usually short, into the
following table.
The users' responses, most of which were short, were collated into the fol-
lowing table.
Double negatives can be difficult to parse and are ambiguous.
There do not seem to be any reasons not to adopt the new approach.
The impression here is of condemnation—
we don't like the new approach but we're
not sure why
—but praise was intended; the quote is from a paper advocating the
new approach. This is another example of the academic tendency to overqualify.
The revision “There is no reason not to adopt the new approach” is punchier, but
still negative. It is difficult to suggest further improvement with the same meaning,
because the meaning was probably unintended, but the following better reflects the
original aims.
