* Smylers <[email protected]> [2008-10-17 09:50]: > Aristotle Pagaltzis writes: > > That's actually totally wrong! > > (Is being "actually totally wrong" different from just being > "wrong"?)
Yes: what you wrote was wrong on multiple levels and did not incorporate any individually correct statements. > > It's a very misconception, though, > > Yes. It's very. The missing word was "common," obviously. Did I miss something? Is this hates-software or hates-poorly-edited-email? Maybe I should post to hates-irrelevant-nitpickery. :-) In other news, this sequence: 1. http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/0/07/Motivational93.png 2. http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/4/4b/Accidentallycoke.jpg 3. http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/1/17/Batman24.jpg 4. http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/2/2d/AccidentallyEconomy.jpg > It may be wrong, but Perl behaves consistently with its being > true, and believing it avoids the surprise that the original > hater encountered. Perl also behaves consistently with its real behaviour being true. It behaves consistently with the wrong illusion just because the illusion is wrong on enough levels that they cancel out in most cases. But the real behaviour is much simpler than the magical explanation, not to mention makes it easier to reason correctly and write about it unambiguously. Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
