On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 13:12 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 2/9/15 12:57 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > > On 2/9/15 7:48 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > > > auto result = (() @trusted => cast(immutable)a)(); > > > > I'm okay with this as with most of Steve's points. But > > "genericness" is not a word :o). -- Andrei > > Merriam Webster says otherwise ;) > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/generic >
But that dictionary doesn't matter, the OED is the one true keeper of the English language. From what I can see genericity is not officially an English word, even though OUP have published a book with this "word" as title: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199691807.do Genericness is definitely listed, and so is a valid word. On the other hand, terms of art (aka jargon) are allowed, and computer science has determined that genericity is a valid word. As long as it is used in a computer science, software context. :-) -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part