In my opinion R.E. Boss’ point still stands (notwithstanding what Wikipedia’s value as a general source of reference might be from one’s point of view). What can be sufficiently clear to the writer might not be to the reader and redundancy (from the author perspective) could clarify the exposition of difficult concepts (from a reader’s viewpoint).
Extra explicit statements in the dictionary such as "adverbs and conjunctions cannot take adverbs or conjunctions as arguments" or "a fork does not have any other implied order-of-execution apart from the diagrams" can or could have been helpful as far as I am concerned (so, in the latter case, even the best of the readers would not have to guess the original intention ( http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2007-December/009118.html ). ________________________________ From: Raul Miller <[email protected]> To: Programming forum <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:31:56 AM Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] The Ambiguous Dictionary On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 2:18 AM, R.E. Boss <[email protected]> wrote: > From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_(language) > (capitals from me, REB): And we all know that the wiki is always completely accurate. -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
