"Mike James" <f...@bar.com> wrote in message news:hl9i1q$24m...@digitalmars.com... > > I can understand that, but the problem is - the dictionary definition of > 'retro' is 'associated with or revived from the past'. It doesn't > correctly describe the action. It could generate many hours of semiotic > arguements... ;=) >
I think there's probably a lot of cases where dictionary definitions don't quite match a word's usage in the programming world. "Kill", "thread", "string", "rake" (the ruby build tool) all come to mind. Of course, "retro" might be argued to be more of a stretch than some of those, but you can also think of "retro" just referring to the prefix "retro" (which does basically just mean "backwards", AIUI) rather than the actual word "retro".
