Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!selfless.tophat.at!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Uncle Steve Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Types in C Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 21:16:21 -0400 Organization: Friends of the Galactic Collective Lines: 55 Message-ID: References: <848fd4a481072a3-7a4d3@gmail.com> <5e3bc1901a4e1d6-bdea9@gmail.com> <3623466319a1ab1-b7914@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="job9yP/rmK/fxQbJrcqEcA"; logging-data="316"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/uwunz3kfuRPwRvHUzb15R" User-Agent: nn 6.7.3 Content-Length: 2040 Cancel-Lock: sha1:MB5HH1eJrX4Tmz56ConUVwzZFZk= Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.c:4737 On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 04:50:43PM +0000, Seebs wrote: > On 2011-05-24, Uncle Steve wrote: > > Language lawyering... Hmm. Dictionary.com does not seem to contain a > > definition that supports your imputation of the pejorative. > > Huh? > > It's got nothing to do with the definitions; it's to do with Gricean maxims. > > Language is used to communicate. If people say something, they thought it > was adding information. > > If instead of saying: > Uncle Steve is a millionaire > I say > Uncle Steve claims he is a millionaire > I have added words; the added words are logically presumed to add > information. So long as you aren't being redundant, and there's no shortage of redundant English from poor writers. But I like the suggestion anyways. Don't forget about the mansion and yacht. > > Ha, well on Usenet nothing can be taken for granted. What say you do > > and who you say you are is always subject to verification. > > I think the difference is... > > If I make a technical claim, and you think I'm wrong, it's perfectly > possible that I'm wrong but not lying. > > If I make a claim about my qualifications or experience, and you think > I'm wrong, it's not in general possible that I'm wrong but not lying. > > So one of them is an accusation of lying, while one of them is an accusation > of error-or-lying. It admits a charitable interpretation. And I don't > know any competent computer people who are offended by the allegation that > they could be mistaken. We make mistakes. There is a reason that there > is a category of software tools called "debuggers". Opinions are divided on the subject of debuggers. I believe Linus is said to have opposed an in-kernel debugger for the reason that its availability would lead to lazy programming practices. I don't know whether the anecdote is true, but it is an interesting thought. Regards, Uncle Steve -- Should a professional politician be charged with molestation if he kisses babies while attending political rallies?