Probably unintended double negation

[mattiasnordqvist]

Type of issue

Typo

Description

Are these double negations intended?
Should I avoid to not "... use overloads that don't explicitly or implicitly specify the string comparison rules for string operations"?

Page URL

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/base-types/best-practices-strings

Content source URL

https://github.com/dotnet/docs/blob/main/docs/standard/base-types/best-practices-strings.md

Document Version Independent Id

fe538551-dcfc-c244-3f16-864d3f6c2a6e

Article author

@adegeo

Metadata

• ID: dead2df6-1ec5-b55c-89aa-d05a7a75a0eb
• Service: dotnet-fundamentals

[adegeo]

This one feels tough. I'm not totally sure for either side. Both ways would make sense to me, but if you were skimming the article you may be tripped up by a positive in the list of negatives. Each items also stands alone. I think it should remain as-is.

Some further thoughts:

You could merge both lists and introduce them appropriately:

• Do ...
• Do ..
• Do ..
• Do ..
• Don't ...
• Don't ...

However, their are a lot more Do than Don't, which may make it harder for the Don't to stand out, hence a paragraph break between the two lists.

If you wanted to open a pull request to adjust these, I'm fine with it, but I don't think this is a priority for us at the moment as I think it's clear enough. Thank you for the suggestion!