Subject: Re: (loop for ? in ? finally ?)
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 2000/02/25
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* "Fernando D. Mato Mira" <>
| I've never seen redundancy as the primary reason ...

  I was referring to an inherent characteristic of human languages, and as
  such, redundancy is indeed a primary.  indeed, some redundancy is a
  _good_ thing in human communication.  that is, what might be considered
  "redundant" from a purist point of view is actually necessary to maintain
  proper communication conduits between people who can't pay 100% attention
  100% of the time and who most certainly can't cope with 100% of the
  ramification of every statement 100% of the time.  so we yield to the
  nature of the human mind instead of removing all forms of redundancy.