Re:The Untold Story of the Pentagon Papers Co-Conspirators
by jws on Tuesday February 06, 2018 @10:53AM
(#16317016)
I think the slightly different meaning is that it is the set of conspirators not including the conspirator you have named previously. So if I conspire with Alice and Bob in a peer based nonhierarchical fashion to make our names famous in cryptography, Alice and Bob are my co-conspirators, though we are all conspirators.
So in this headline, we are talking about people other than Ellsberg.
Re:The Untold Story of the Pentagon Papers Co-Conspirators
by banku_brougham on Tuesday February 06, 2018 @10:04AM
(#16316614)
Thank you, i support this. I hadn’t noticed before but yeah, redundant.
Its mildly infuriating, like DB schemas that are named something_schema. The object is a schema so using “schema” in the name is the first step into the inferno, in my view.
Re:The Untold Story of the Pentagon Papers Co-Conspirators
by yardie on Tuesday February 06, 2018 @10:53AM
(#16317015)
I agree with the grammar as written. But when describing objects in a programming language isn't it better to add the type into the variable name? I've always found o_object, s_string, d_double to be quite common when working with ObjC examples. So often, that I assume it's best practice.
When dealing with a wall of text it's not always obvious that a schema is a schema.
Co-conspirator is re-redundant.
Thank you for tolerating my inner pedant.