Issue 131 in vim: Wrong phrasing in runtime/tutor/tutor

[v...@googlecode.com]

Status: New
Owner: ----
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium

New issue 131 by jlmendez...@gmail.com: Wrong phrasing in
runtime/tutor/tutor
http://code.google.com/p/vim/issues/detail?id=131

https://code.google.com/p/vim/source/browse/runtime/tutor/tutor#557

"* Type :s/old/new/g to substitute 'new' for 'old'."
should be:
"* Type :s/old/new/g to substitute 'old' for 'new'."

I doubt anyone is getting confused by this though...



--
You received this message because this project is configured to send all
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings

[tooth pik]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 05:56:20PM +0000, v...@googlecode.com wrote:
> Status: New
> Owner: ----
> Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium

> New issue 131 by jlmendez...@gmail.com: Wrong phrasing in
> runtime/tutor/tutor
> http://code.google.com/p/vim/issues/detail?id=131

> https://code.google.com/p/vim/source/browse/runtime/tutor/tutor#557

> "* Type :s/old/new/g to substitute 'new' for 'old'."
> should be:
> "* Type :s/old/new/g to substitute 'old' for 'new'."

> I doubt anyone is getting confused by this though...

I am now

[Gary Johnson]

Me, too. It was correct in the first place.

Regards,
Gary

[Ben Fritz]

On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 12:56:20 PM UTC-5, v...@googlecode.com wrote:
>
>
> "* Type :s/old/new/g to substitute 'new' for 'old'."
>
> should be:
>
> "* Type :s/old/new/g to substitute 'old' for 'new'."
>
>
>

I think it's correct as written, but phrased a little strangely.

I'd rather it say, "Type :s/old/new/g to replace 'old' with 'new'."

[tooth pik]

I'm guessing here but I bet it was written as it was so as to give the
user a mnemonic for remembering the :s/// command, specifically the
word "substitute" -- the use of the words "old" and "new" in the
example should remove any doubt as to what happens when it's invoked

[John Little]

On Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:01:41 AM UTC+12, Ben Fritz wrote:

> I think it's correct as written, but phrased a little strangely.

The confusion seems IMO caused by the "highly informal" usage "substitute X with Y" which "should be avoided in standard English" according to my dictionary, the Concise Oxford, which recommends "substitute Y for X", the original wording.

Regards, John Little

[v...@googlecode.com]

Comment #1 on issue 131 by Go.Zu...@gmail.com: Wrong phrasing in
runtime/tutor/tutor
http://code.google.com/p/vim/issues/detail?id=131

I think that:
to substitute 'new' for 'old' is equivalent with: to replace old with new

[Ben Fritz]

On Thursday, April 25, 2013 5:21:41 PM UTC-5, v...@googlecode.com wrote:
> Comment #1 on issue 131 by Go.Zu...@gmail.com: Wrong phrasing in
>
> runtime/tutor/tutor
>
> http://code.google.com/p/vim/issues/detail?id=131
>
>
>
> I think that:
>
> to substitute 'new' for 'old' is equivalent with: to replace old with new
>

It is, but it's a less commonly used phrasing, so it is confusing to some.

I see the meaning but the OP reversed the meaning.

[v...@googlecode.com]

Updates:
Status: Invalid

Comment #2 on issue 131 by chrisbr...@googlemail.com: Wrong phrasing in
runtime/tutor/tutor
https://code.google.com/p/vim/issues/detail?id=131

I think it is correct. So closing.