[vim] Missing comma before `but` in assert messages (#626)

[Nikolai Aleksandrovich Pavlov]

Consider the following script:

LANG=C vim -u NONE -i NONE -N --cmd 'call assert_false(v:true)' --cmd 'call assert_true(v:false)' --cmd 'echo v:errors' --cmd qa

this will echo

['pre-vimrc command line: Expected False but got v:true', 'pre-vimrc command line: Expected True but got v:false']

which is missing commas before but.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[Gary Johnson]

On 2016-02-06, Nikolai Aleksandrovich Pavlov wrote:
> Consider the following script:
>
> LANG=C vim -u NONE -i NONE -N --cmd 'call assert_false(v:true)' --cmd 'call assert_true(v:false)' --cmd 'echo v:errors' --cmd qa
>
> this will echo
>
> ['pre-vimrc command line: Expected False but got v:true', 'pre-vimrc command line: Expected True but got v:false']
>
> which is missing commas before but.

No commas are needed there nor should they be there. The two
clauses separated by the but are not independent. See for example,

http://www.grammarly.com/handbook/punctuation/comma/23/comma-before-but/

Regards,
Gary

[Nikolai Aleksandrovich Pavlov]

No commas are needed there nor should they be there. The two
clauses separated by the but are not independent. See for example,

http://www.grammarly.com/handbook/punctuation/comma/23/comma-before-but/

They are independent: “Expected False” is a separate subsentense then “got v:true”, nothing will change even if you swap them: “Got v:true, but expected False”.

[Gary Johnson]

On 2016-02-07, Nikolai Aleksandrovich Pavlov wrote:
> No commas are needed there nor should they be there. The two
> clauses separated by the but are not independent. See for example,
>
> http://www.grammarly.com/handbook/punctuation/comma/23/comma-before-but/
>
> They are independent: “Expected False” is a separate subsentense then “got
> v:true”, nothing will change even if you swap them: “Got v:true, but expected
> False”.

It's a little unclear to me which rule applies since neither clause
has a subject. If each had a subject, they would be independent and
would require a comma, e.g.,

I expected False, but I got v:true>

If there was only one subject at the beginning of the sentence, then
the clauses would not be independent and would not require a comma.

I expected False but got v:true.

I assumed the two clauses in question to be like the second case.
There is also a common convention that applies here, and that is
that the comma is often omitted when joining two short clauses.

Regards,
Gary

[Christian Brabandt]

If I read grammar rules correctly one would need a subject in the subsentence to be truly independent, but I don't hink we should discuss english grammar here. Closing for now, as both versions seems to be widely used.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[Christian Brabandt]

Closed #626.