On 07/30/2014 04:11 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
"Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d" wrote in message
news:mailman.227.1406728603.16021.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
"D - the language that redefines commonly used and universally
understood terms and concepts"?
Yes, see pure for another example. "D - the pragmatic language"
...
I don't think it is a posteriori justified by pragmatism, or that this
is even a way to increase conceived or actual pragmatism.
> not that it can't work the way Walter and I have described.
Possible != sane.
The main problem isn't even the terminology; it's the consequences
wrt safety and correctness.
Yes, this is a much more useful discussion to have than what other
people have definined assert to do.
My impression has been:
This is the discussion Ola wanted to have in the first place. He defined
all the terminology he was using, and the distinction was relevant,
because it actually captured the 'consequences wrt safety and
correctness'. Then his terminology was picked up as a convenient vector
for 'attack' and his point was ignored.
