I would apologise, Luke, but I'm far too busy chuckling quietly =D -----Original Message----- From: lojban-beginners-bou...@lojban.org [mailto:lojban-beginners-bou...@lojban.org]on Behalf Of Luke Bergen Sent: 02 September 2009 13:57 To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: SRSLY, this hasn't been about Klingon for a while, now.
Ok, this whole starting a new thread but replying to both the new and the old thread thing is making me look foolish. I just replied in the other thread with exactly "hence 'tend to' :-p". Damnit michael! :) On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Michael Eaton < michael.ea...@blackpool.gov.uk> wrote: Hence 'tend to' ;0). To be honest, Lojban is a very attractive language for someone familiar with programming, at least from my point of view, due to its logical rules and construction. The syntax is very absolute, and there is minimal interpretation of intended meaning compared to 'natural' languages. It's very hard to misunderstand a properly constructed statement in Lojban, as opposed to the vast amount of ambiguity in english, for instance. /ramble -----Original Message----- From: lojban-beginners-bou...@lojban.org [mailto: lojban-beginners-bou...@lojban.org]on Behalf Of Sara Brand Sent: 02 September 2009 13:18 To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: klingon swears Not all of us do. I'm only barely following this discussion. On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Michael Eaton < michael.ea...@blackpool.gov.uk> wrote: Ladies and gentlemen, I think we now have compelling evidence that purveyors of Lojban tend to have a coding background. -----Original Message----- From: lojban-beginners-bou...@lojban.org [mailto: lojban-beginners-bou...@lojban.org]on Behalf Of Michael Turniansky Sent: 02 September 2009 12:45 To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: klingon swears On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:07 AM, Michael Eaton< michael.ea...@blackpool.gov.uk> wrote: > Also applies in SQL, where I use it most. To my knowledge, <> is the more > 'common' cousin to != > > > <> meaning 'not equals' has been around at least since 1983 > (Locomotive BASIC and IIRC all popular BASICs written after then) > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_equal >> >> In AutoIT "<>" is used to mean what "!=" means in java/c/etc... >> >> I could be wrong but I believe the same is true of InstallScript >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequation >> >> I think I've also seen "~" (tilde) and a NOT sign (small sideways "L") used >> before "=" to make it mean "not equal to". I suppose I could chime in that in MUMPS, the not equal operation is '=, but I won't. (But then again, all statements I make are a lie) --gejyspa http://www.blackpool.gov.uk/EmailDisclaimer/ This message has been scanned for inappropriate or malicious content as part of the Council's e-mail and Internet policies. http://www.blackpool.gov.uk/EmailDisclaimer/ This message has been scanned for inappropriate or malicious content as part of the Council's e-mail and Internet policies. ******************************************************************************See the Blackpool You Tube video aimed at attracting French visitors by clicking this link http://www.visitblackpool.com/jetaime ****************************************************************************** http://www.blackpool.gov.uk/EmailDisclaimer/ This message has been scanned for inappropriate or malicious content as part of the Council's e-mail and Internet policies. Click here <https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/wQw0zmjPoHdJTZGyOCrrhg==> to report this email as spam.
