From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@euclid.skiles.gatech.edu [130.207.146.50]) by melb.werple.net.au (8.7.5/8.7.3/2) with ESMTP id EAA21508 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 04:08:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA12978; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 13:58:27 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 13:58:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Zefram Message-Id: <18295.199606281757@stone.dcs.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: zsh-3.0-pre1 released To: wayne@clari.net (Wayne Davison) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 18:57:17 +0100 (BST) Cc: A.Main@dcs.warwick.ac.uk, hzoli@cs.elte.hu, zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu In-Reply-To: <199606281752.KAA08541@tenor.clarinet.com> from "Wayne Davison" at Jun 28, 96 10:52:23 am X-Loop: zefram@dcs.warwick.ac.uk X-Stardate: [-31]7728.74 X-US-Congress: Moronic fuckers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"psNrU.0.eA3.2r1rn"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1468 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu >The words are different, but not "completely" different (in my dictionary >one of the definitions for deprecate says "To belittle; depreciate"). They do have a common root. However, I think the above definition of deprecate is misleading. >It is interesting to note that the word deprecate was at one time much >stronger than depreciate (it meant to deplore not just to devalue), but That's the meaning we want. >that common usage is moving it toward the meaning of depreciate. Thus >either word is probably OK, but depreciate is more traditional. No. In this context, the term used in standards documents is deprecate. -zefram