It's not equivalent, so it's not commutative.
Vulgar means ordinary, ... It's actually redundant.
In both cases, the problem is not with the strict interpretation of the descriptions, but rather with the inadequacy of the explanations as to their consequences.
Most every programmer, new or old, good or mediocre, understands that x-y is different to y-x, but perhaps only 5% or so would ever describe subtraction as non-communicative. And far less as "commutatively broken".
Beyond the value judgement that certain combinations of letters (words), are deemed vulgar in some circles, the only relatively common use of the word vulgar is "vulgar fractions". Also known as "common fractions". Which basically reduces to just "fractions".
Neither the sentence nor the overall understanding is enhanced by the use of "vulgar" in that position. It is technical or scientific language used to convey a false impression of meaningful technical or scientific content. Which is one (of the more polite), definitions of "technobabble".
In reply to Re^3: Perl 5.11.0 now available
by BrowserUk
in thread Perl 5.11.0 now available
by Anonymous Monk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |