"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:jfnf2r$913$1...@digitalmars.com... > "Steven Schveighoffer" <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:op.v8l0jzrdeav7ka@localhost.localdomain... >> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:59:46 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote: >> >> This has nothing to do with it. They could have come up with a *million* >> better choices. >> >> Couple that with the fact that: >> >> a) you usually want something on or off. If it's already in the desired >> state, you can usually tell without looking at the switch. >> b) It's far more mentally taxing to read/understand the symbols, remember >> how they apply to circuits, then determine whether it's on or off, than >> it is to simply start flipping switches until you get the desired result. >> > > So symbols are bad because they chose the wrong symbol? >
I put "So symbols are bad because they chose the wrong symbol?" after the wrong quote. I meant it in response to "This has nothing to do with it. They could have come up with a *million* better choices."
