Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:15:55 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> Is the word "generally" here an error? I read this as implying the >> normal meaning of "should" -- that not everything which violates a >> "should" mandate is a bug. > > I am of the opinion that it is. We can replace non-buggy > instances of should by 'ought to be', if needed.
But please don't forget a "legal definition" of those terms. For me, as a non-native speaker, I have no idea whether "ought to" is weaker or stronger than "should", or just something different (and what). Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
