[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: string> missing?
From: |
Nick Andryshak |
Subject: |
Re: string> missing? |
Date: |
Wed, 03 Jun 2015 16:53:03 -0400 |
Jay Belanger writes:
> In what way is any one of the answers the least bit unreasonable?
Since you asked:
> Because they do.
"Because they do" is a non-answer.
> The cause is lost in history.
Nonsense.
> No, I don't agree.
I really don't understand why Eli would say something like this. I think
it contradicts his work.
> That's exactly the point: there's no need to apply the same logic to
> both cases.
This makes no sense: I'm sure many people have seen the function
'string<' and assumed that there exists a counterpart 'string>'. I think
that this is a reasonable assumption to make. In fact, that's probably
why we're having this (rather silly) discussion in the first place.
- Nick
- Re: string> missing?, (continued)
- Re: string> missing?, Nick Andryshak, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Nick Andryshak, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Andreas Schwab, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Alan Mackenzie, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Nick Andryshak, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Nick Andryshak, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Jay Belanger, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?,
Nick Andryshak <=
- Re: string> missing?, Jay Belanger, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Thibaut Verron, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Stefan Monnier, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Thibaut Verron, 2015/06/04
- Re: string> missing?, Nicolas Richard, 2015/06/04
- Re: string> missing?, Thibaut Verron, 2015/06/04
- Re: string> missing?, Stefan Monnier, 2015/06/04
- Re: string> missing?, Stefan Monnier, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Tassilo Horn, 2015/06/04