Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Haskell Weekly News: Issue 140 - November 22, 2009
On Nov 24, 2009, at 10:29 PM, Sean Leather wrote: On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 05:46, Richard O'Keefe wrote: For example, "ai" in Maori means "to copulate", Really [1]? It's amazing what Google [2] will tell you these days. ;) Really! Check http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/ In fact if you read [1], you will find "There is also another lexical ai which is a verb with the meaning ‘to copulate’" on page 4. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Haskell Weekly News: Issue 140 - November 22, 2009
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 05:46, Richard O'Keefe wrote: > For example, "ai" in Maori means "to copulate", > Really [1]? It's amazing what Google [2] will tell you these days. ;) [1] http://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/343 [2] http://www.google.com/search?q=ai+maori Regards, Sean ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Haskell Weekly News: Issue 140 - November 22, 2009
I should point out that what seems like a rude name in one language may be a perfectly proper word in another. For example, "ai" in Maori means "to copulate", and yet we have things like the AI Journal. Naughty naughty. F*ck is a perfectly good German name, I believe, and you will find that name associated with some fungi. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Haskell Weekly News: Issue 140 - November 22, 2009
Hi Benjamin On 24 Nov 2009, at 02:35, Benjamin L.Russell wrote: On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:14:29 -0800 (PST), jfred...@gmail.com wrote: Typef*ck: Brainf*ck in the type system. Johnny Morrice [23]showed us his implementation of everyone's favorite profane programming language... in the type system. In general, if a programming language-related term contains what is generally regarded as a profane word as a component, for what kinds of written material should I prioritize accuracy vs. propriety? Who gives a brain? More seriously, I worry that inaccuracy (other than blessed relief from tedious pedantry, of course) might ever be improper. Lots of arts academia write learned articles about filth, and it's no big deal when it's in quotation. That's the situation here, no? Perhaps use quotation marks just to be clear that the terminology is not of your making. But you should have no need of ASCII-art fig leaves. (Now, as far as *email* (e.g., HWN) is concerned, it makes sense to act like wise spammers the world over and disguise your true intentions from the automated filters. People from Scunthorpe must be really fed up doing that. I know they're fed up being used as an example, too. Sorry.) Yours ever Coqnor ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Haskell Weekly News: Issue 140 - November 22, 2009
I censored it because I intend the HWN to be a PG rated article. I figure -- while I am not under any delusion that kids these days have mouths fouler than mine, which is a feat for sure -- that some young programmer with strict speaking morals may stumble upon the HWN and say, "Hey self! This is a fantastically written weekly newsletter concerning recent developments in this community, and did I mention how wonderfully written it is?" I should want said programmer to not feel any offense that can be easily avoided by a single * here or !...@#$ there. Generally I'm opposed to censorship -- but that generally entails an authority censoring against the will of the author, I think that in this case -- as I am the author/editor (not of the post proper, but rather the conduit to the post) -- that censorship-self-inflicted doesn't really count. I guess my view is that such a paper with an unintentionally foul- mouthed name -- like Brainf*ck -- ought not be the reason for which your paper is rejected from a journal or other publication source, but rather it should be understood that it might be mildly censored (as I did) if it is publish, in accordance with the intended audience of the publication source. /Joe On Nov 23, 2009, at 9:35 PM, Benjamin L.Russell wrote: On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:14:29 -0800 (PST), jfred...@gmail.com wrote: Typef*ck: Brainf*ck in the type system. Johnny Morrice [23]showed us his implementation of everyone's favorite profane programming language... in the type system. Incidentally, I've always wondered about the politically correct way of referring to this programming language (and related implementation in the above-mentioned type system) in academic circles; if I were writing a paper for submission to an academic journal, should I place priority on accuracy or propriety? In general, for what kinds of publications should I prioritize one criterion over the other? In general, if a programming language-related term contains what is generally regarded as a profane word as a component, for what kinds of written material should I prioritize accuracy vs. propriety? -- Benjamin L. Russell -- Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/ Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725 "Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto." -- Matsuo Basho^ ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
