Re: Clarity vs. code reuse/generality
- From: Albert van der Horst <albert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 16 Jul 2009 13:19:08 GMT
In article <CuH4m.3259$ze1.429@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Lie Ryan <lie.1296@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 05:13:28 +0000, Lie Ryan wrote:
When people are fighting over things like `sense`, although sense may
not be strictly wrong dictionary-wise, it smells of something burning...
That would be my patience.
I can't believe the direction this discussion has taken.
Me neither.
Anybody sensible
would be saying "Oh wow, I've just learned a new meaning to the word,
that's great, I'm now less ignorant than I was a minute ago". But oh no,
we mustn't use a standard meaning to a word, heaven forbid we disturb
people's ignorance by teaching them something new.
A meaning of a word is meaningless if nobody apart the writer
understands it. The purpose of code is 1) to communicate with the
Exactly. And the OP teaches to scientist. They know sense in that
meaning. Maybe you don't, but that is irrelevant.
<SNIP>
Groetjes Albert.
--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
.
- References:
- Clarity vs. code reuse/generality
- From: kj
- Re: Clarity vs. code reuse/generality
- From: Steven D'Aprano
- Re: Clarity vs. code reuse/generality
- From: Lie Ryan
- Clarity vs. code reuse/generality
- Prev by Date: Re: Persistent variable in subprocess using multiprocessing?
- Next by Date: Re: missing 'xor' Boolean operator
- Previous by thread: Re: Clarity vs. code reuse/generality
- Next by thread: Re: Clarity vs. code reuse/generality
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
