Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> writes:
> clist(at)uah(dot)es (Angel Alvarez) writes:
>> there is not so 'more optimal' thing but a simple 'better' thing.
> If I wanted to be pedantic about it, I'd say that the word "nearly" is
> missing.
> That is, it would be "strictly correct" if one instead said "more
> nearly optimal."
This sort of construction is longstanding practice in English anyway.
The most famous example I can think of offhand is in the US
Constitution: "... in order to form a more perfect union ..."
regards, tom lane