Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Haskell Weekly News: Issue 140 - November 22, 2009
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 05:46, Richard O'Keefe wrote: For example, ai in Maori means to copulate, Really [1]? It's amazing what Google [2] will tell you these days. ;) [1] http://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/343 [2] http://www.google.com/search?q=ai+maori Regards, Sean ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Haskell Weekly News: Issue 140 - November 22, 2009
Incidentally, I've always wondered about the politically correct way of referring to this programming language (and related implementation in the above-mentioned type system) in academic circles; Is this a question of politically correctness? Since there's no discrimination or prejudice involved, I think it's more of a question of social rules. If you are using a word where it's going to be indexed, like article titles, I vote for beeing accurate. But outside that, it's difficult to answer this in a way that extends beyond one's own circle of friends. Censoring a bad word may be polite for some, and offensive for others, what could we do about that? Regarding brainfuck itself, I think beeing censored is part of the joke. In general, if a programming language-related term contains what is generally regarded as a profane word as a component, for what kinds of written material should I prioritize accuracy vs. propriety? If we decide to allow * inside conids and varids in Haskell, and have a rule that names clash when they differ only by a letter replaced by a *, we have gone too far. Best, Maurício ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Haskell Weekly News: Issue 140 - November 22, 2009
On Nov 24, 2009, at 10:29 PM, Sean Leather wrote: On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 05:46, Richard O'Keefe wrote: For example, ai in Maori means to copulate, Really [1]? It's amazing what Google [2] will tell you these days. ;) Really! Check http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/ In fact if you read [1], you will find There is also another lexical ai which is a verb with the meaning ‘to copulate’ on page 4. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Haskell Weekly News: Issue 140 - November 22, 2009
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:14:29 -0800 (PST), jfred...@gmail.com wrote: Typef*ck: Brainf*ck in the type system. Johnny Morrice [23]showed us his implementation of everyone's favorite profane programming language... in the type system. Incidentally, I've always wondered about the politically correct way of referring to this programming language (and related implementation in the above-mentioned type system) in academic circles; if I were writing a paper for submission to an academic journal, should I place priority on accuracy or propriety? In general, for what kinds of publications should I prioritize one criterion over the other? In general, if a programming language-related term contains what is generally regarded as a profane word as a component, for what kinds of written material should I prioritize accuracy vs. propriety? -- Benjamin L. Russell -- Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/ Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725 Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto. -- Matsuo Basho^ ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Haskell Weekly News: Issue 140 - November 22, 2009
I censored it because I intend the HWN to be a PG rated article. I figure -- while I am not under any delusion that kids these days have mouths fouler than mine, which is a feat for sure -- that some young programmer with strict speaking morals may stumble upon the HWN and say, Hey self! This is a fantastically written weekly newsletter concerning recent developments in this community, and did I mention how wonderfully written it is? I should want said programmer to not feel any offense that can be easily avoided by a single * here or !...@#$ there. Generally I'm opposed to censorship -- but that generally entails an authority censoring against the will of the author, I think that in this case -- as I am the author/editor (not of the post proper, but rather the conduit to the post) -- that censorship-self-inflicted doesn't really count. I guess my view is that such a paper with an unintentionally foul- mouthed name -- like Brainf*ck -- ought not be the reason for which your paper is rejected from a journal or other publication source, but rather it should be understood that it might be mildly censored (as I did) if it is publish, in accordance with the intended audience of the publication source. /Joe On Nov 23, 2009, at 9:35 PM, Benjamin L.Russell wrote: On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:14:29 -0800 (PST), jfred...@gmail.com wrote: Typef*ck: Brainf*ck in the type system. Johnny Morrice [23]showed us his implementation of everyone's favorite profane programming language... in the type system. Incidentally, I've always wondered about the politically correct way of referring to this programming language (and related implementation in the above-mentioned type system) in academic circles; if I were writing a paper for submission to an academic journal, should I place priority on accuracy or propriety? In general, for what kinds of publications should I prioritize one criterion over the other? In general, if a programming language-related term contains what is generally regarded as a profane word as a component, for what kinds of written material should I prioritize accuracy vs. propriety? -- Benjamin L. Russell -- Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/ Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725 Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto. -- Matsuo Basho^ ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Haskell Weekly News: Issue 140 - November 22, 2009
Hi Benjamin On 24 Nov 2009, at 02:35, Benjamin L.Russell wrote: On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:14:29 -0800 (PST), jfred...@gmail.com wrote: Typef*ck: Brainf*ck in the type system. Johnny Morrice [23]showed us his implementation of everyone's favorite profane programming language... in the type system. In general, if a programming language-related term contains what is generally regarded as a profane word as a component, for what kinds of written material should I prioritize accuracy vs. propriety? Who gives a brain? More seriously, I worry that inaccuracy (other than blessed relief from tedious pedantry, of course) might ever be improper. Lots of arts academia write learned articles about filth, and it's no big deal when it's in quotation. That's the situation here, no? Perhaps use quotation marks just to be clear that the terminology is not of your making. But you should have no need of ASCII-art fig leaves. (Now, as far as *email* (e.g., HWN) is concerned, it makes sense to act like wise spammers the world over and disguise your true intentions from the automated filters. People from Scunthorpe must be really fed up doing that. I know they're fed up being used as an example, too. Sorry.) Yours ever Coqnor ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Haskell Weekly News: Issue 140 - November 22, 2009
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:50:22 -0500, Joe Fredette jfred...@gmail.com wrote: I guess my view is that such a paper with an unintentionally foul- mouthed name -- like Brainf*ck -- ought not be the reason for which your paper is rejected from a journal or other publication source, but rather it should be understood that it might be mildly censored (as I did) if it is publish, in accordance with the intended audience of the ^^^ publication source. ^^ Aha, but therein lies the gist of the issue: For example, if somebody wrote a hypothetical Haskell library called (and properly censored, according to your standards) Monadam*: A library for translating those dam* monads into non-monad-syntax form, and wanted to submit a paper on the semantics of the library to a functional programming journal, then for that intended audience of the publication source, should the title be self-censored prior to submission, or left intact? In addition (just to be pedantic, but this issue could conceivably arise with certain library names in the future), if the library were announced on, say, the main Haskell mailing list, then for that intended audience of the publication source, should the subject line of the announcement read ANN: Monadam*: A Library for Translating Those Dam* Monads into Non-monad-syntax Form, or would it be more appropriate to leave the library name intact? Normally, this issue does not arise, but with certain programming language names that contain profane terms within, there is a possibility that somebody could potentially name a library similarly, leading to this referencing issue. Presumably, the Library of Congress citation would include the full name, regardless of any profane terms within; if the name were censored to be politically correct, and then some researcher wanted to look up the Library of Congress citation, couldn't the censoring potentially lead to referencing difficulties? For a researcher potentially wishing to look up a publication, this could become an issue. How should this issue be resolved? -- Benjamin L. Russell -- Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/ Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725 Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto. -- Matsuo Basho^ ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Haskell Weekly News: Issue 140 - November 22, 2009
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:58:30 +, Conor McBride co...@strictlypositive.org wrote: Hi Benjamin On 24 Nov 2009, at 02:35, Benjamin L.Russell wrote: On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:14:29 -0800 (PST), jfred...@gmail.com wrote: Typef*ck: Brainf*ck in the type system. Johnny Morrice [23]showed us his implementation of everyone's favorite profane programming language... in the type system. In general, if a programming language-related term contains what is generally regarded as a profane word as a component, for what kinds of written material should I prioritize accuracy vs. propriety? Who gives a brain? More seriously, I worry that inaccuracy (other than blessed relief from tedious pedantry, of course) might ever be improper. Lots of arts academia write learned articles about filth, and it's no big deal when it's in quotation. That's the situation here, no? Perhaps use quotation marks just to be clear that the terminology is not of your making. But you should have no need of ASCII-art fig leaves. Agreed. Inaccuracy in the title can potentially lead to cross-referencing difficulties if a search is performed. As long as the title is in quotation, it would seem that accuracy should probably be prioritized over the political incorrectness of portions of the title, so that someone who wishes, say, to perform a search need not search for both versions of the title. (Now, as far as *email* (e.g., HWN) is concerned, it makes sense to act like wise spammers the world over and disguise your true intentions from the automated filters. People from Scunthorpe must be really fed up doing that. I know they're fed up being used as an example, too. Sorry.) Hmm. That's a potential dilemma. If someone were, say, a functional programming researcher and wanted to look up related discussions in archived mailing lists and newsgroups on a term that included a politically incorrect subterm within, then it would then be necessary to perform a search on all the following variants (taking Monadam* (with the asterisk replaced by the the correct letter) as an example): 1) the uncensored version 2) Monadam* 3) Monada** 4) Monad*** 5) Mona Wow. Unfortunately, the automated filtering software is likely to mark a message of an uncensored title as spam. Maybe the mailing lists and newsgroups have no choice but to be left out of any related searches in order to escape the filters? -- Benjamin L. Russell -- Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/ Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725 Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto. -- Matsuo Basho^ ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Haskell Weekly News: Issue 140 - November 22, 2009
I should point out that what seems like a rude name in one language may be a perfectly proper word in another. For example, ai in Maori means to copulate, and yet we have things like the AI Journal. Naughty naughty. F*ck is a perfectly good German name, I believe, and you will find that name associated with some fungi. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
