On 2009-11-14, at 00:22, Alf P. Steinbach wrote, in response to my earlier post.
> Anyways, it's a good example of focusing on irrelevant and meaningless > precision plus at the same time utilizing imprecision, higgedly-piggedly as > it suits one's argument. Mixing hard precise logic with imprecise concepts > and confound e.g. universal quantification with existential quantification, > for best effect several times in the same sentence. Like the old Very Hard > Logic + imprecision adage: "we must do something. this is something. ergo, we > must do this". OK, now we've reached a total breakdown in communication, Alf. You appear to take exception to distinguishing between a language and its implementation. My academic work, before I became a computer science/software engineering instructor, was in programming language specification and implementation, so I *DO* know what I'm talking about here. However, you and I apparently are speaking on different wavelengths. > It's just idiocy. Regretfully, I must agree. > But fun. Not so much, from my viewpoint. -- v -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
