> > Once again: it's meaningless to reject a definition if you're not > > going to provide a better one in its place.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 04:44:34PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Not true. It is my position that we do not need to write or adopt a > definition at all. I don't want you to change the status quo in this > regard; I don't want *any* definition to be adopted. We already have > the term; it has a meaning; it has served us well. ... > I am not obliged to propose a different departure just to object to > the departure you want to make. I want to leave things as they are > (with respect to the definition of "source code"). I'll agree that you're not under any obligation to provide a suitable definition in the same way you're not obliged to make sense. Frankly, I don't see that that definition has the flaws you've claimed it has. [For example, if there are equivalent representations and one is the preferred form then any of them are the preferred form.] Anyways, status quo is: some of us use a definition of "source code" which you disagree with. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
