# So (that) meaning in order that.



## gabriel001234

I was reading about programming and found this sentence: "To declare an optional parameter you use *Optional Keyword*, so the code that uses it may omit that parameter."

Does "so" mean "in order that" in that case? Also, can I use "so that" in that case?

EDIT: "optimal" was replaced by "optional"


----------



## PaulQ

gabriel001234 said:


> Does "so" mean "in order that" in that case?


Yes.





> Also, can I use "so that" in that case?


Yes.


----------



## gabriel001234

PaulQ said:


> Yes.Yes.


Thank you very much.


----------



## Jimbob_Disco

It does indeed mean ‘in order to’, and you could indeed say ‘so that’.


----------



## gabriel001234

Just one more question. Does so in the following sentence mean "in order that" and, therefore, can be replaced by "so that"?

Check carefully, so any mistakes will be caught.


----------



## Jimbob_Disco

gabriel001234 said:


> Just one more question. Does so in the following sentence mean "in order that" and, therefore, can be replaced by "so that"?
> 
> Check carefully, so any mistakes will be caught.


Is this not exactly the same as the original question?


----------



## gabriel001234

Jimbob_Disco said:


> Is this not exactly the same as the original question?


I posted another sentence. I'd like to know if that case also applies to my second sentence.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Are you sure it's 'optimal' not 'optional?

Yes, you can use 'so that' or 'in order that' in the new sentence.


----------



## gabriel001234

Uncle Jack said:


> Are you sure it's 'optimal' not 'optional?
> 
> Yes, you can use 'so that' or 'in order that' in the new sentence.


Yes, I'm 100% sure it's optimal.


----------



## Jimbob_Disco

gabriel001234 said:


> I posted another sentence. I'd like to know if that case also applies to my second sentence.


Apologies, I misinterpreted that as you asking us to check the original sentence for any other errors!


----------



## gabriel001234

Uncle Jack said:


> Are you sure it's 'optimal' not 'optional?
> 
> Yes, you can use 'so that' or 'in order that' in the new sentence.


Actually, I'm not too sure about that.


----------



## gabriel001234

Uncle Jack said:


> Are you sure it's 'optimal' not 'optional?
> 
> Yes, you can use 'so that' or 'in order that' in the new sentence.


I think it's "optional". Sorry for any inconvenience.


----------



## Jimbob_Disco

You need an article in front of ‘optimal’ ➜ ‘the optimal’/‘an optimal’.


----------



## Uncle Jack

gabriel001234 said:


> I think it's "optional". Sorry for any inconvenience.


No inconvenience. It just looked odd to me.


----------



## Jimbob_Disco

Uncle Jack said:


> No inconvenience. It just looked odd to me.


You still need an article, though! See post #13.


----------



## gabriel001234

Jimbob_Disco said:


> You still need an article, though! See post #13.


Thank you. I found that sentence on a website so I don't know if the poster forgot about it or he/she didn't use the article because he/she doesn't think that it is necessary in that context.


----------



## Jimbob_Disco

gabriel001234 said:


> Thank you. I found that sentence on a website so I don't know if the poster forgot about it or he/she didn't use the article because he/she doesn't think that it is necessary in that context.


It isn’t optional - was said article written by a native?


----------



## gabriel001234

Jimbob_Disco said:


> It isn’t optional - was said article written by a native?


Yes, it was. I think the poster didn't use an article because the phrase is highlighted.


----------



## Jimbob_Disco

gabriel001234 said:


> Yes, it was. I think the poster didn't use an article because the phrase is highlighted.


Maybe! Do you have a link, because it still seems wrong?!


----------



## gabriel001234

Jimbob_Disco said:


> Maybe! Do you have a link, because it still seems wrong?!


I can't find it anymore. I copied that sentence from there, but I can't remember where I found it. Also, Google isn't helping me that much.


----------



## Jimbob_Disco

gabriel001234 said:


> I can't find it anymore. I copied that sentence from there, but I can't remember where I found it. Also, Google isn't helping me that much.


Who knows then! I’d still use an article, though...


----------



## gabriel001234

Jimbob_Disco said:


> Who knows then! I’d still use an article, though...


I found it. Click here to see it. "Optional Keyword" is in bold.


----------



## lingobingo

To declare an optional parameter you use *Optional keyword*, so the code that uses it may *omit* that parameter.

This is how the sentence reads in that link. As I suspected, it appears that so does not mean "in order to" but "therefore". In other words, because the parameter is optional, it may be omitted.


----------



## Edinburgher

lingobingo said:


> it appears that so does not mean "in order to" but "therefore".


I agree.


----------



## gabriel001234

gabriel001234 said:


> I found it. Click here to see it. "Optional Keyword" is in bold.





lingobingo said:


> To declare an optional parameter you use *Optional keyword*, so the code that uses it may *omit* that parameter.
> 
> This is how the sentence reads in that link. As I suspected, it appears that so does not mean "in order to" but "therefore". In other words, because the parameter is optional, it may be omitted.


Well, other posters think it mean "in order that" because the code needs the keyword "Optional" to omit the optional parameter. To declare an optional parameter you use Optional Keyword, to the end that the code that uses it may omit the parameter. If you don't use Optional, the parameter won't be omitted. That's why I and other posters think it means "in order that".


----------



## gabriel001234

lingobingo said:


> To declare an optional parameter you use *Optional keyword*, so the code that uses it may *omit* that parameter.
> 
> This is how the sentence reads in that link. As I suspected, it appears that so does not mean "in order to" but "therefore". In other words, because the parameter is optional, it may be omitted.


Wait! After reading it several times, I actually think it means "therefore". Using the keyword "Optional" is a way to make the code omit the parameter. It's something that may happen if I use the keyword Optional


----------



## lingobingo

You may well be right. I'm only going by the syntax. But there's more information here which might help? Optional Parameters (Visual Basic)


----------



## gabriel001234

lingobingo said:


> You may well be right. I'm only going by the syntax. But there's more information here which might help? Optional Parameters (Visual Basic)


Well, I made another post in which I agree with you. I think that using Optional does not necessarily make the code omit the parameter (The code is not looking foward to do it). I think it doesn't mean "in order that" because omitting the parameter is not the objective of the code.


----------



## gabriel001234

lingobingo said:


> I'm only going by the syntax. But there's more information here which might help? Optional Parameters (Visual Basic)


Also, I also think that the syntax indicates that it means "therefore". I think it is odd to say "in order that" with "may", but there is an example I found in a dictionary:

in order that, so that; to the end that:
We ought to leave early in order that we may not miss the train.

Can you tell me if you think it's odd to say "so" with "may"?
Also, can you explain me why you think it means "therefore" so I can see if I'm starting to understand it?


----------



## lingobingo

Good.


----------



## gabriel001234

I don't know if you've seen my last post, but can you answer my questions please? I'm getting confused. By the way, thanks for your help! It's always good to see posters having different opinions!


----------



## PaulQ

gabriel001234 said:


> We ought to leave early in order that we may not miss the train.


That sounds like a badly written sentence from a 19th century book of "Useful English Phrases for foreigners".


----------



## gabriel001234

PaulQ said:


> That sounds like a badly written sentence from a 19th century book of "Useful English Phrases for foreigners".


I think it's very odd.


----------



## PaulQ

gabriel001234 said:


> Can you tell me if you think it's odd to say "so" with "may"?


No: "Oil the lock so we may open the door." However, "may" is falling out of use and is being replaced by can/do, etc.


----------



## lingobingo

gabriel001234 said:


> I don't know if you've seen my last post, but can you answer my questions please? I'm getting confused. By the way, thanks for your help! It's always good to see posters having different opinions!


Syntactically, if it did mean what you originally thought, it would have been written as:

_To declare an optional parameter you use Optional keyword so that the code that uses it can omit that parameter._


For the *so* to mean *therefore* (which it seems, after all, that it does):

_To declare an optional parameter you use Optional keyword, therefore the code that uses it may omit that parameter._
=
_To declare an optional parameter you use Optional keyword, therefore it's possible that the code that uses it will omit that parameter._


----------



## gabriel001234

lingobingo said:


> Syntactically, if it did mean what you originally thought, it would have been written as:
> 
> _To declare an optional parameter you use Optional keyword so that the code that uses it can omit that parameter._
> 
> 
> For the *so* to mean *therefore* (which it seems, after all, that it does):
> 
> _To declare an optional parameter you use Optional keyword, therefore the code that uses it may omit that parameter._
> =
> _To declare an optional parameter you use Optional keyword, therefore it's possible that the code that uses it will omit that parameter._


But in informal speech, "that" is usually omitted after so. And as PaulQ said, may is acceptable.


----------



## gabriel001234

PaulQ said:


> No: "Oil the lock so we may open the door." However, "may" is falling out of use and is being replaced by can/do, etc.


Do you still think "so" in that sentence means "in order that"?


----------



## lingobingo

gabriel001234 said:


> But in informal speech, "that" is usually omitted after so. And as PaulQ said, may is acceptable.


This is not informal speech, it's a set of written instructions.


----------



## gabriel001234

lingobingo said:


> This is not informal speech, it's a set of written instructions.


Correct me if I'm wrong. It does not mean "in order that" because the keyword Optional is not used to omit parameters, but this can probably happen if the parameter is not needed (as I said earlier, it's not the objective of the code). It means "therefore" because using the keyword creates the possibility that the parameter may be omitted.


----------



## lingobingo

I can't comment on the technical aspect of it!


----------



## gabriel001234

lingobingo said:


> I can't comment on the technical aspect of it!


But that's not about technical aspects. It's about the meaning of the sentence. I also can't comment on the technical aspect of it because I'm still learning about that.


----------



## PaulQ

gabriel001234 said:


> Do you still think "so" in that sentence means "in order that"?


I see "so" in it's meaning of "and as a consequence" - I think it comes close to, but does not reach "in order that".

I think you are on a wild goose-chase. It is a mistake to think that English has many satisfactory synonyms, and this is particularly true of "small words". They usually all carry a nuance that the alternative lacks.


----------



## gabriel001234

PaulQ said:


> I see "so" in it's meaning of "and as a consequence" - I think it comes close to, but does not reach "in order that".
> 
> I think you are on a wild goose-chase. It is a mistake to think that English has many satisfactory synonyms, and this is particularly true of "small words". They usually all carry a nuance that the alternative lacks.


 But you told me in post #2 that it means "in order that" in that context.


----------



## manfy

It looks like you're starting to go in circles. 
If you take a step back and look at the structure of the sentence, you'll see that it makes no semantic difference whether you interpret 'so' as _therefore_ or as _in order to_:

Do <some instruction>, *therefore/as a result* <something> *may* be done in a certain way.
vs.
Do <some instruction> *in order to make it possible that* <something> *may* be done in a certain way.

Therefore introduces a result clause, which obviously tells us the result of some action; 'in order to' introduces a clause that describes the purpose of this action and - in our case - also the expected result!
Bottom line: The overall meaning doesn't really change -- in _this_ sentence!

Of course, there are other sentences where the difference matters, e.g.:
I bought a house, so I'm broke. -> This can only mean '..., therefore I'm broke' because nobody would say 'I bought a house in order to be broke.'

Although ... if you really intended to express the latter, you'd have to use 'so that' and explanatory reasoning, e.g.:
I bought a house, so that everybody knows I'm broke and hopefully stop bugging me with their begging for loans and donations.


----------



## Uncle Jack

I think the OP's 'in order that' is correct, and for what it's worth, I think the original author accidentally omitted 'the'.

You write Optional in the list of parameters when you declare a procedure. Within the procedure itself, this has no effect.

When you call the procedure from another part of code, you need to include all the parameters. If you want to omit a parameter, it must have been declared with Optional.

"To declare an optional parameter you use [the] *Optional Keyword*, _in order that_ the code that uses it may omit that parameter."


----------



## Edinburgher

Uncle Jack's assessment of what's going on is correct, in my view, and in this case it would make more sense to write "the keyword _*optional*_" and not "the *optional* keyword", and most definitely not "the *Optional Keyword*".

It's impossible to say categorically that it must mean either "in order that" or "therefore".  In principle, both interpretations are possible, but I favour the latter.  It's a question of perspective.
Let X = Declare the paramater optional by using the keyword optional.
Let Y = Omit certain parameters.

Is it explaining that if or when we do X, then we can do Y?  Then being able to Y is a consequence of doing X, and the meaning is "therefore".  Alternatively they could have used "and so".
Or is it saying that if we want to do Y, we need to do X?  Then X is the prerequisite of the purpose Y, and the meaning is "in order that", which could have been written as "so that".

Frankly, neither of these possibilities is optimally described by the sentence as it stands.  It is not well written, and therefore a discussion of what "so" means in it is bound to be inconclusive.


----------



## gabriel001234

Edinburgher said:


> Uncle Jack's assessment of what's going on is correct, in my view, and in this case it would make more sense to write "the keyword _*optional*_" and not "the *optional* keyword", and most definitely not "the *Optional Keyword*".
> 
> It's impossible to say categorically that it must mean either "in order that" or "therefore".  In principle, both interpretations are possible, but I favour the latter.  It's a question of perspective.
> Let X = Declare the paramater optional by using the keyword optional.
> Let Y = Omit certain parameters.
> 
> Is it explaining that if or when we do X, then we can do Y?  Then being able to Y is a consequence of doing X, and the meaning is "therefore".  Alternatively they could have used "and so".
> Or is it saying that if we want to do Y, we need to do X?  Then X is the prerequisite of the purpose Y, and the meaning is "in order that", which could have been written as "so that".
> 
> Frankly, neither of these possibilities is optimally described by the sentence as it stands.  It is not well written, and therefore a discussion of what "so" means in it is bound to be inconclusive.


I know that if the keyword Optional is used, there is a possibility that the parameter will be omitted if it's not necessary, but I'm not sure if it's a prerequisite of the purpose Y. I think Y is just a consequence of doing X. As you said, the sentence is not well written, so some posters will say that "so" means "in order that" and others will say that it means "therefore". However, as manfy said, both options show what is the result of the action. It's just a matter of choosing which of the meanings is better, and each poster has a different opinion about that.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Normally, you don't use Optional in the procedure declaration and you don't omit any parameters when you call the procedure.

Sometimes you find that you want to omit a parameter when you call the procedure, usually because the same procedure is called from several points in the program, but not everywhere you call the procedure from uses all the variables you had written into the procedure as parameters. To do this, you add the Optional keyword to that parameter in the procedure declaration.

The need to omit a parameter comes first. Adding Optional to the procedure declaration comes second. You add it so you can omit the parameter.

On a side issue, 'the Optional keyword' is fine, it is the usual word order when keywords are referred to in programming manuals. 'The Optional keyword' is also fine; I find it clearer to write even single words from code in a monospace typeface, but many manuals do not. Longer code extracts are almost always in monospace (as they are in the quoted article). Words used in code must be capitalised as they are in the code itself, so in this case it is 'Optional'. 'Keyword' isn't usually capitalised, and wasn't in the original article, but the OP transcribed it incorrectly. There is no single convention for *bold*, and the quoted article seems highly erratic in its use of bold text. The original article omitted 'the' before 'Optional' keyword, but as I said in a previous post, I think this is an error.


----------



## gabriel001234

Uncle Jack said:


> Normally, you don't use Optional in the procedure declaration and you don't omit any parameters when you call the procedure.
> 
> Sometimes you find that you want to omit a parameter when you call the procedure, usually because the same procedure is called from several points in the program, but not everywhere you call the procedure from uses all the variables you had written into the procedure as parameters. To do this, you add the Optional keyword to that parameter in the procedure declaration.
> 
> The need to omit a parameter comes first. Adding Optional to the procedure declaration comes second. You add it so you can omit the parameter.
> 
> On a side issue, 'the Optional keyword' is fine, it is the usual word order when keywords are referred to in programming manuals. 'The Optional keyword' is also fine; I find it clearer to write even single words from code in a monospace typeface, but many manuals do not. Longer code extracts are almost always in monospace (as they are in the quoted article). Words used in code must be capitalised as they are in the code itself, so in this case it is 'Optional'. 'Keyword' isn't usually capitalised, and wasn't in the original article, but the OP transcribed it incorrectly. There is no single convention for *bold*, and the quoted article seems highly erratic in its use of bold text. The original article omitted 'the' before 'Optional' keyword, but as I said in a previous post, I think this is an error.


Why does the quoted article seems erratic in its use of bold text? Is it using bold text oddly?


----------

