TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: 'might' vs. 'may' From:Aahz <aahz -at- NETCOM -dot- COM> Date:Fri, 14 Oct 1994 18:06:33 GMT
In article <aahzCxML5M -dot- 9sn -at- netcom -dot- com>, Aahz <aahz -at- netcom -dot- com> wrote:
>What (if any) opinions do people have about the comparative worth of the
>following two statements:
> If the board IDs are not consecutive, the bootstrap loader might not
> detect some of the boards.
> If the board IDs are not consecutive, the bootstrap loader may not
> detect some of the boards.
So far, opinions are running approximately 2 to 1 in favor of 'may'.
I'm following up a bit early, because one person suggested that I
rewrite the sentences to use 'will not'.
<dry chuckle> Well, that doesn't quite work, because the loader *will*
detect the boards -- as far as we know, that is. We don't want to
document it as detecting non-consecutive boards, because we're well
aware of various weird hardware problems that could conceivably affect
the detection mechanism, and we don't have the resources to do extensive
testing.
Sound familiar? ;-)
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het
The best way to get information on Usenet is not to ask a question,
but to post the wrong information.
