On 22 Sep 2006, at 05:14, Robby Findler wrote:
> At Thu, 21 Sep 2006 23:01:02 -0400, Anton van Straaten wrote:
>> However, allegations that these usages are *wrong* in some sense
>> seem to
>> result from a misunderstanding of the sense in which the terms are
>> being
>> used.
>
> I don't think that anyone doubts there is a way to use the language
> consistently, but perhaps if a different word were chosen (the
> "boring"
> value or the "uninteresting" value or the "unit" value (following ML)
> or ...) it would be clearer to casual readers what was going on.
void?
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza, mailto:pc_at_p-cos.net, http://p-cos.net
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab
Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium
--
Pascal Costanza, mailto:pc_at_p-cos.net, http://p-cos.net
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab
Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium
Received on Fri Sep 22 2006 - 03:20:42 UTC