Subject: Re: type safety in LISP From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 09 Dec 2002 10:08:59 +0000 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Pascal Costanza | If this is the wrong conclusion, then the other alternative is that | you deliberately used the term "statically typed languages" to refer | only to the set of languages that are based on explicit typing.  That is what people who believe books about C# believe. | However, the correct usage of that term also covers languages based | on implicit typing (or type inference). Yes, Pascal, there is only one correct usage, and it is yours. Instead of being such a fucking annoying dipshit all the time, how about suggesting the terminology that you /would/ be happy with so we can get past this goddamn pestering of yours? I shall endeavor to use the terminology your anal-retentive highness suggests simply because I hate your senseless abruptions and interruptions of what was, or at least could have been, a discussion of something other than your pathetic needs for the "correct" terminology. | If your intention was to exclude the latter kind of languages you | should have made that explicit. So sue me. You seem to forget that there might be disagreement on the things you pronounce your One True Judgment on. Please learn that I do not agree with you that "static typing" /usefully/ covers your pet functional languages. So many things become impossible to discuss when you just /have/ to share your opinions on this matter. I also fail to see how I can make you happy. No matter what people say about "statically typed languages", there is always room for some weirdo languages and its religious followers to scream "but /my/ language is different!". The whole /point/ is that your pet languages are different from the entire rest of the family it tries very hard to be a member of, but is not. | I consider it a fundamental mistake to use a general term for a | proper subset without saying so. I consider it a fundamental mistake to leap out of context with a different specific meaning of a general concept than the one that is actually in use. You annoy me about as much as the morons who can never grasp that "hacker" /also/ means a malicious idiot, but have to quip "the correct usage is cracker" solely to annoy people. If you have such a massive problem coping with the usage that other people accept, could you at the very least try to behave in public so you do not derail other people's discussions all the time? | I didn't expect you to be more liberal in that regard. There we have it. Your expectations. I appreciate that you are /finally/ beginning to become aware of their contribution. |  This would also explain your statement about me having "shown | an /additional/ piece of information". Amazing! You are able to connect the dots. Congratulations! Have I made it clear yet that you piss me off? Why do you have to continue? Are social graces not part of your touchy-feely methods? That you, of all people, value anal-retentive "correctness" over the ability of other people to discuss something different from your pet peeves is actually pretty sickening since you also attack those who correct others. You /disgust/ me, Pascal Costanza. -- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.