Re: GDP: introducing examples

[Eyolf Østrem]

On 19.10.2007 (14:58), Graham Percival wrote:


> Mark Knoop wrote:
> >Graham Percival wrote:

> >>1)  The text just continues directly into

> >>2)  The text suggests that one may do foo,

> >>3)  The text directs the reader to the following example:

> >>4)  The text forms a complete sentence.

> >>Should allow all?  Specify one method?  Disallow one or two methods?
> >I prefer 4, 3, 2, 1 (in that order). But I don't think standardisation
> >is necessary, although perhaps an official preference could be specified.

> That's my preference as well, although IMO #1 looks like a mistake 
> (missing punctuation) -- my vote is to not allow #1, but let writers pick 
> any of the other three methods.

I agree too. I can probably think of a case where 1) MIGHT be
permissible, (sth like:

"if you file has
[example]
you will get ... ")

but such constructions will rarely look elegant, and it's better to
rephrase it to 2)-4).

eyolf

-- 
   "All this modern technology just makes people try to do everything at once."
-Hobbes