Adding Object Oriented Principles (OOP) to a functional codebase adds yet another way of writing code, reducing consistency and clarity.

Luisa: She allowed him. Honestly, I respect my mom a lot for never speaking badly upon my dad. To this day, she will not say bad things about my father. Whatever may have happened with them, she knows that that's on them and she knows that our relationship with my father is completely separate from their relationship, and I admire that greatly because I don't think I'd be able to separate the two that easily. No, she never spoke badly upon him, but I think ... My dad said this in the entire life that I'm his favorite child, and I think that was also the way of my mother getting back at him for everything that he did to her, which is not right, but we're human beings.

Prettier intentionally doesn’t support any kind of global configuration. This is to make sure that when a project is copied to another computer, Prettier’s behavior stays the same. Otherwise, Prettier wouldn’t be able to guarantee that everybody in a team gets the same consistent results.

“It is less clear that way” — that is just arbitrary, even uninformed. There is nothing clearer about def self.method. As demonstrated earlier, once you grasp the true meaning of it, def self.method is actually more vague as it mixes scopes

ts geo-metric meaning is also more obvious as the rotation axis and angle can be trivially recovered.

I like this approach more because I can scan the code that renders the Box component and easily spot that it takes two children. If the Box took any props, they'd be within the opening <Box> tag, and they would be distinct from any children props.

By reifying a specific kind of computation, a monad not only encapsulates the tedious details of that computational pattern, but it does so in a declarative way, improving the code's clarity.

I like the clarity of this approach instead of stuffing it in initialize.

.

l2-regularization

Just to reiterate the discussion on the RFC, there was a suggestion that we change <svelte:slot slot="foo"> to <svelte:fragment slot="foo">, since it's the counterpart to a <slot> rather than an equivalent to it

Clear writing starts with clear thinking:What am I really trying to say?What is the key point I need to make?How can I make that key point easy to understand?We'll explore two tools for increasing clarity: Simple sentencesExamples and counterexamples

Don't sacrifice clarity for brevity when creating a minimal example.

As you can see, one of the main differences between the old var and the new let/const declarations (besides their scope) is that the latter are constrained by the Temporal Dead Zone semantics, meaning they will throw a ReferenceError when accessed (read/write) before being initialized, instead of returning undefined as a var-declared variable would. This makes the code more predictable and easier to spot potential bugs. Simple, isn't it?

For that reason, it is recommended to always declare variables at the top of their scope (the top of global code and the top of function code) so it's clear which variables are function scoped (local) and which are resolved on the scope chain.

It is good for clarity, i.e. it makes it clear which files are modules, and which are regular JavaScript.

The plain-language aspect of this solution is in fact law. The Plain Writing Act of 2010 creates provisions for “clear Govern-ment communication that the public can understand and use” (http://bkaprt.com/dcb/02-14/). The guidelines are well worth a read, even if you don’t work for the government.

As a result, I end up quoting multiple people, sometimes quoting several people back-to-back, before even writing my reply. In those instances it feels like I'm not properly citing those individuals. I feel like it might seem I'm not providing new readers appropriate context for a given quote. It might also be implied that separate quotes are from the same person, leading to mis-attribution.

I honestly don't know what you find unclear about this question. I think you initially misread. I edited out your title change because it wasn't what I'd intended and it misled others. I edited in two more sections to clarify. The last section makes it as clear as I can: A single question provokes 1 of 3 responses (not necessarily answers). To chose between them I need to understand acceptable scope of both question and answers. Yes this topic is a muddy one, that's why I'm asking! I want others to help me clarify the unclear!

Clean and clear as much as it can be

I'm saying I'm ready to switch just because of the clarity of the code.

“allow/deny are simply clearer terms” — now that’s an actual, technically useful argument.

Be clear and unambiguous. The average user should be easily able to understand what they’re consenting to;

But now, I think there’s still some lack of clarity from consumers on exactly what they need to do

Additionally, the information should be clearly differentiated from other non-privacy-related information, such as contractual provisions or general terms of use.

Third, the focus should be centered on improving transparency rather than requesting systematic consents. Lack of transparency and clarity doesn’t allow informed and unambiguous consent (in particular, where privacy policies are lengthy, complex, vague and difficult to navigate). This ambiguity creates a risk of invalidating the consent.

gets awkward with wider usage

Q. I would like a copy of my data from a breach, can you please send it to me? A. No, I cannot Q. I have a breach I would like to give you in exchange for “your” breach, can you please send it to me? A. No, I cannot Q. I’m a security researcher who wants to do some analysis on the breach, can you please send it to me? A. No, I cannot Q. I’m making a searchable database of breaches; can you please send it to me? A. No, I cannot Q. I have another reason for wanting the data not already covered above, can you please send it to me? A. No, I cannot

terms like "malicious security cracker" are sufficiently evocative and clear that their use actually helps make communication more effective than the common journalistic misuse of "hacker".

I suggest being very clear that there has not been a security incident on the site they're logging into and that the password was exposed via a totally unrelated site

It's amazing what new can do for clarity. This is exactly what I meant, but couldn't figure out how to phrase at the time.

"users are not able to fully understand the extent of the processing operations carried out by Google and that ‘the information on processing operations for the ads personalization is diluted in several documents and does not enable the user to be aware of their extent."

Are cookies governed by the GDPR? Cookie usage and it’s related consent acquisition are not governed by the GDPR, they are instead governed by the ePrivacy Directive (Cookie Law) which in future will be repealed by the up-coming ePrivacy Regulation.

Directives from the World Health Organization have provided the companies with the kind of clarity engineers appreciate.

Meditation

for then he cannot fail of having his meaning understood, wherein consists the right use and perfection of language.

that experience,

The specter of upcoming departure influenced behavior in a way that removed one from reality — academics in Lyon mattered less at home, new friends would return to their countries of origin and communication would lapse, and why invest for comfort when somewhere so briefly?

Not in Austin, but near, and often visiting. Twenty miles North. Sometimes, further

Here in your Lordships’ House we are very fortunate to have a considerable number of noble and learned Lords who give us the benefit of their expertise. I have noticed that they often disagree, and very strongly. Therefore, surely keeping these issues in the Bill would save an awful lot of legal time and legal argument and would be better for the Government. I say that in a spirit of total helpfulness and support.

There is this idea of women being able

it makes it hard for someone who doesn’t fit into these molds of heteronormativity to find an authentic operatic voice when portraying a role, reenacting a scene, or just trying to relate to the lyrics in a particular song.

It should be clear to you by now that any attempt to manipulate arises out of the limited three-dimensional frame of reference. Therefore, do not contemplate or express this desire when you know you are not in that Place. It will be a total waste of time and energy. You certainly should be aware that the need arises out of your Being, because the fulfillment of that desire is at hand to be consciously perceived and lived, rather than unconsciously lived as separate and apart from the totality of your Being. You are getting the picture, I see. Be alert to the fact, Paul, that sloppy questions beget sloppy answers. Learn to be more precise in your requests and your desires. An ambiguous question begets an ambiguous answer. If you want to know something, be sure to ask a question that begets a specific answer. As you are aware, James said, “Ye ask and receive not because ye ask amiss.“1 If you are not getting an answer to the need, it is because the question does not address itself to that specific answer. You will find that when you have the right question, you will spontaneously and effortlessly know the answer. You can depend upon it.

clearness of speech

People do not feel towards strangers as they do towards their own countrymen, and the same thing is true of their feeling for language. It is therefore well to give to everyday speech an unfamiliar air: people like what strikes them, and are struck by what is out of the way.

Obscurity is also caused if, when you intend to insert a number of details, you do not first make your meaning clear; for instance, if you say, "I meant, after telling him this, that and the other thing, to set out," rather than something of this kind "I meant to set out after telling him; then this, that, and the other thing occurred."

The foundation of good style is correctness of language, which falls under five heads. (1) First, the proper use of connecting words, and the arrangement of them in the natural sequence which some of them require. For instance, the connective "men" (e.g. ego men) requires the correlative "de" (e.g. o de). The answering word must be brought in before the first has been forgotten, and not be widely separated from it; nor, except in the few cases where this is appropriate, is another connective to be introduced before the one required. Consider the sentence, "But as soon as he told me (for Cleon had come begging and praying), took them along and set out." In this sentence many connecting words are inserted in front of the one required to complete the sense; and if there is a long interval before "set out," the result is obscurity. One merit, then, of good style lies in the right use of connecting words. (2) The second lies in calling things by their own special names and not by vague general ones. (3) The third is to avoid ambiguities; unless, indeed, you definitely desire to be ambiguous, as those do who have nothing to say but are pretending to mean something. Such people are apt to put that sort of thing into verse.

Chapter 5 (1407b) The foundation of good style is correctness of language, which is discussed under five heads: (1) right use of connecting words; (2) use of special, and not vague general, terms; (3) avoidance of ambiguity; (4) observance of gender; (5) correct indication of grammatical number. A composition should be easy to read and therefore easy to deliver; it should avoid (1) uncertainties as to puntuation, (2) zeugma, (3) parenthesis.

Style to be good must be clear, as is proved by the fact that speech which fails to convey a plain meaning will fail to do just what speech has to do. It must also be appropriate, avoiding both meanness and undue elevation; poetical language is certainly free from meanness, but it is not appropriate to prose.

Style, to be good, must be clear; it must also be appropriate, avoiding both meanness and excess of dignity

I am one of those who are very willing to be refuted if I say anything which is not true, and very willing to refute any one else who says what is not true, and quite as ready to be refuted as to refute; for I hold that this is the greater gain of the two, just as the gain is greater of being cured of a very great evil than of curing another. For I imagine that there is no evil which a man can endure so great as an erroneous opinion about the matters of which we are speaking; and if you claim to be one of my sort, let us have the discussion out, but if you would rather have done, no matter;—let us make an end of it.