"Passed" vs "past": Usage in an error message

I wrote code to detect a problem where live video playout of a file had moved beyond the end of the clip on disk. The clip itself may be growing due to an ongoing recording or a transfer of the file across a network. The error message described the effect ("displayed black") followed by a helpful hint about the possible reason: passed media EOF? I waffled for quite a while between that and past media EOF? Both are true: The "play head" has passed the end of the file and it is now past the end.

Ultimately I chose passed because it described the event. It allows for the fact that the file may grow and then stop again, causing a second occurrence of the message when we pass the EOF once again. It does cause confusion for people who are dealing with a file that won't grow. In that case past EOF seems more accurate.

Is one clearly better than the other in this application?

Solution 1:

A key difference between them is that passed is talking about process while past is talking about state. Because of that, I would tend to go with passed for a transient message that will naturally go away some time after its described event occurs and past for a message that will continue to be displayed as long as the state it is describing applies.

Solution 2:

If the act of passing the EOF is what caused the error to arise, then the implication is that now that we are safely on the other side of it, there should be no more error. Also, passing the EOF marker in the other direction should raise the error again.

If the fact that we are on the wrong side of the EOF is what is causing the error, then our condition of being past the EOF marker is the issue, and we can expect that moving back onto the other side of it will fix the error. (This usage is also perfectly consistent with a file that can grow or shrink.)

Therefore I would prefer the use of "past."