On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 3:23:20 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 12:13:33 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 3:00:54 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

Yeah, you did. And you said you'd use a machinist's square and "file
to fit." Fit what? The machinist's square is what your sentence said.
You weren't filing to fit the file.


You are right, but only if one ignores that title of the thread. Anyone reading it knows the hole is in 1/4 aluminum. So it is not ambiguous to the readers of the thread. The words " along with " indicate that one is using both files and a machinist square to make the hole. To me " file to fit " involks laying out the work, trying the part to see if it fits, filing some more , retrying to see if it fits, etc.

No biggie. But I do not think there was any ambiguity.

Dan


--
Ed Huntress

The file to fit came from Mil spec MILTPFO. Along with"cut to size, file to fit, and paint to match." 8-)

Dan

That's fine. But they aren't saying "file to fit" a machinist's
square.

Here's your sentence again: 'And then would use some small files along
with a machinists square to " file to fit ".'

If that appeared in an article that I was editing, in an article for a
non-machinist, I'd correct the ambiguity by re-writing it:

"And then would use some small files, after using a machinist's square
to lay it out, filing to fit' the part you're fitting into the square
hole."

You just interjected the "along with a machinist's square" in a way
that makes it unclear what you're fitting to. It's a minor syntax
issue. I wouldn't have commented except that you left an opening to
make a wisecrack.

--
Ed Huntress