On 07/30/2014 06:55 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
"Timon Gehr" wrote in message news:lrb6lf$2tf$1...@digitalmars.com...
I mean, we have at least:
<list>
You forgot 'float', which has nothing to do with levitation.
...
:D
This is all true, yet we have to pick names for things. We could call
D's purity 'flarwurghle', but is that really better? D's purity is much
more closely related to other concepts of purity than it is to
flarwurghling.
...
'flarwurghle' indeed seems a little bit off too.
And don't forget int, which is not actually an integer.
...
I didn't, I though that one was too debatable to bring up because it
already has become to be standard in some notable existing programming
languages. :)
To me, the apt response to a relative newcomer who gets confused by
one of those or something like them, especially when used without
quotation marks, is not at all similar to "You're misunderstanding and
misusing this feature, stop making noise."
No, but that is the similar to the correct response when somebody
repeatedly argues that you've defined something wrong because somebody
else defined it differently.
...
I must have missed that.
The discussion on how we _should_ define it is much more interesting,
and ideally the other one would not come up at all.
Agreed.
