David Schultz wrote:
> > So the worst possible outcome in the failure case is that it
> > fails -- which it already does, without the assumption -- and
> > the best possible outcome is that it succeeds when it wouldn't
> > have.
> > "Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't"
> Sometimes. But see http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/DWIM.html
I understand, but having a different failure is no worse than
having a failure, I think. In either case, it doesn't work,
even if it doesn't work in an entirely different way.
| Everyone knows that dragons don't exist. But while this simplistic
| formulation may satisfy the layman, it does not suffice for the
| scientific mind. The School of Higher Neantical Nillity is in fact
| wholly unconcerned with what does exist. Indeed, the banality of
| existence has been so amply demonstrated, there is no need for us to
| discuss it any further here. The brilliant Cerebron, attacking the
| problem analytically, discovered three distinct kinds of dragon: the
| mythical, the chimerical, and the purely hypothetical. They were all,
| one might say, nonexistent, but each nonexisted in an entirely
| different way ...
| -- Stanislaw Lem, "Cyberiad"
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message