|
Keeping with the subject :-P
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, a slight path alteration, but not recursive.
|
|
|
|
|
"Whom" is the object of a prepositional phrase, an indirect object, or a direct object.
English only makes sense once you learn a different language. (less sense in most cases!)
Here is how I verify... Translate to Spanish.
If it is only "quien" (missing accent), then it is "who".
If it is "de quien" (missing accent), then it is "whom". literally: "of whom, from whom, to whom"
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, the grammar is correct! (for those who [write] code). You would not say "for those whom write code".
If you think hiring a professional is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur! - Red Adair
|
|
|
|
|
Not unless you were a stuffy know-it-all!
|
|
|
|
|
LOL! Funny the stuff we get into arguments about in these threads, eh? 
If you think hiring a professional is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur! - Red Adair
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I think most of us need a chuckle and the more preposterous something is, the better.
|
|
|
|
|
AFAIK, the only way to correctly determine when to who vs. whom, is to use grammar rules that don't really exist in the English language (unless you're a linguist). Native German speakers get this right by intuition, because German does have those rules. It boils down to whether the pronoun refers to the accusative object ('who'), or the dative object ('whom'). Here's a really bad analogy for us geeky types: Using the C++ or C# member access operators, . is 'who', and -> is 'whom'. A better example would be the sentence "Who did what to whom?". Commence flame wars re: ...but isn't "Who" in that example actually the subject (in the grammatical sense)?
Eagles my fly, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
|
|
|
|
|
qmartens wrote: better example would be the sentence "Who did what to whom?"
I like that as it fits in with my "he did that to him" rule.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
I believe it's correct because it's a part of a noun phrase. "Those who code" is the object of the sentence but "who" isn't the object of the phrase.
|
|
|
|
|
It's right here, "Who code" is a compound noun in itself. The people who code. "Whom" would be right in "For whom? Well, for those who code!"
|
|
|
|
|
Slow down! i'm still trying to get my head round Python. I haven't got time to learn English as well.
We're philosophical about power outages here. A.C. come, A.C. go.
|
|
|
|
|
Did Horton chime in? He only hears 'who'...
|
|
|
|
|
Most of Python's syntax is English-like. Which reminds me, I've read a blog post a while ago, from a Russian dude who learned programming before he learned English so both he and his teacher just memorized "print" as a meaningless token instead of English-like term "Well, this might output something".
|
|
|
|
|
Life is f***ing great! 
I mean, what a f***ing adventure, is it fun or what!!!
|
|
|
|
|
What happened? Did Al Gore admit global warming is a hoax?
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Nah, that is just trivial sh*t. I am talking about the real thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I used to then I got old now I sit back and say "...remember when life was f***ing good..."
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
|
|
|
|
|
 bugger!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever you took, I need a double shot of it.
|
|
|
|
|
... and on a side note, if only 10% of the people on this planet would think (they do not even need to sit back), the world would be a better place.
|
|
|
|
|
Is a mammoth the mother of all butterflies?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
and when it flaps it's wings chaos ensues.
Format Success.
Welcome to your new signa&*(gD@@@ ![Beer | [beer]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif) @@@@@@*@x@@
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
