Moral debate

[jack]

Hmm, there seems to be too much debate today. gerald_duck, robert_jones, filecoreinuse. And even extended argument about grammar and ice-cream with feanelwa and ewx not-respectively[1].

I guess I'm putting something off :)

In other news: I expected everyone to criticise my phases of the moon, but they didn't. I can never predict what will set people off ;)

[1] Would you distinguish "non-respectively" meaning "not necessarily in the order listed" and "not-respectively" meaning "not in the order listed?" Why didn't I just change the order? Because then I couldn't have this amusing footnote :)

Comments

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

What about them?

(Note I did say *most* other sorts.)

[mair_in_grenderich]

What about them?

I think we should round them all up and put them in a field.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Are one element lists synonymous with their element?

And mustn't there be one you can't put in the field, because of set theory?

[mair_in_grenderich]

Are one element lists synonymous with their element?

No! What kind of a typechecker do you have?
If it's a list of apples, it's not an apple, even if it's a list of only one apple. It's a list, not an apple. If it's a list of lists, um, well, shhhhh.

Mathmo: "You have a big field, and a little field, and the little field is in the big field - "

Farmer: "Weird".