On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 07:45:37PM -0200, Olivier Hallot wrote:
While translating, I stumbled into
"List of known-bad OpenCL implementation"
"List of known-good OpenCL implementation"
Is this the equivalent of
"List of known bad implementation of OpenCL"
"List of known good implementation of OpenCL"
So, I'm not a native English speaker, and I'm by training akin to a
logician, so maybe what I'm going to say is a "déformation
professionnelle".
In my understanding, "List of known-bad OpenCL implementations" (it
needs to be a plural IMHO) is equivalent to "List of OpenCL
implementations that are known to be bad", while "List of known bad
implementations of OpenCL" is equivalent to "List of OpenCL
implementations that are known and are bad". "Known to be bad" and
"known and bad" are not the same statement.
Also, is there a better word for "bad" in that context? What is
"bad"? underperformance?, incomplete? unreliable? incompatible?
etc...
The sentence doesn't say... Maybe the context does.
--
Lionel
Context
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.