-1

I'm writing documentation for a software library and I want to express that when a function fails, the bytes in the result buffer (which is always an array of bytes, this is a strongly typed language) are undefined.

I originally wrote, "Upon failure, the contents of this buffer are undefined", but now I'm contemplating, "Upon failure, the content of this buffer is undefined".

If the function succeeded, then the result buffer represents an XML document, so it's a single entity. If the function fails, it's technically just an array of bytes with no defined meaning, so it's multiple countable entities.

Thoughts?

codesniffer
  • 107
  • 1
  • It seems that "a single entity" is also bereft of a definition. Do you mean unknown, or unpredictable, or unknowable, or garbage, or implementation dependent, or unreliable, or variable from one execution to the next, or not of one cloth woven? Are you mainly concerned with the grammatical agreement of content is in the singular versus that of contents are in the plural? – tchrist Mar 31 '24 at 23:04
  • It doesn't make much difference. "Upon failure, the buffer content is undefined". – Weather Vane Mar 31 '24 at 23:13

1 Answers1

1

Here's the relevant usage chart showing relative prevalence for plural the buffer contents are and singular the buffer content is...

enter image description here

Take your pick. I defy anyone to claim some subtle difference in meaning.

FumbleFingers
  • 140,184
  • 45
  • 294
  • 517