[Article Context, First Draft] Concurrency, Parallelism and D

[Don]

dsimcha wrote:
> On 4/10/2011 7:29 PM, Don wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 04/09/2011 09:27 PM, dsimcha wrote:
>>>> On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>>> On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>>>>> I think the article's title is missing a comma btw.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andrei
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where?
>>>>>
>>>>> Where could it ever be? After "parallelism".
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrei
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in
>>>> middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the "and" is
>>>> optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct.
>>>
>>> I see. I go by "Bugs in Writing" (awesome book)
>>
>> Ugh. I have a profound hatred for that book. Rule of thumb: if any style
>> guide warns agains split infinitives, burn it.
>>
> 
> Another of my memories from my middle school education.  I specifically 
> remember being told not to use split infinitives.  Then, a few weeks 
> later we were watching the daily news video that was part of the middle 
> school curriculum at the time and it was mentioned that the Oxford 
> dictionary had voted to consider split infinitives proper grammar. (This 
> was in either late 1998 or early 1999.)  All this happened with the 
> teacher in the room watching.

Bill Bryson's 'Mother Tongue' contains an excellent diatribe against 
that and other silly rules. He asks the question, who originally comes 
up with these rules? And the answer is, hobbyists. It's quite incredible 
where some of them originate.

Is there a split infinitive in the first sentence below?
"We must boldly go where none have gone before."
"We have to boldly go where none have gone before."