[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: a problem with terminology
This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 103 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 103 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
- To: srfi-103@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: a problem with terminology
- From: Derick Eddington <derick.eddington@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:36:02 -0800
- Delivered-to: srfi-103@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:to:in-reply-to :references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer :content-transfer-encoding; bh=q1t40LdyynlnVCCYEuA+jaHoVZysZ/WomMJ3CmruXno=; b=PzLg2RfBNruKXdVuyTP0eSAaTQE81w628XYXnhOaVYvjfU+PajpnIANqoQpq34cuKU iJAd+PDufJmEfZQ//UT0APkuaHLXGtj+iz6EQHF5v9RLWzwCJwCT/xp8e8Hl69ttNUml 9Q7Oz3EQSy5wAP8iGdZWJ7XG/P5PUQJGkQVio=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id :mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=RVRxFidPYGNmiKlKJpSmOrfayrF0Ep9v9lkPCFi30wsKkLDbXimnKcMR4k2zM9RvGP DggLZcCuBiqzF0/z9JYr+wCLKE+fe35cirPWRwtW+3HmMe4dHT3jHBZdb9xCaeC0oZlV NMhL/6Fg2HD7LEMxF7zqi2NqAFbCmKGdrdFR4=
- In-reply-to: <1263276484.5579.32.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <1263269131.5579.23.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1263275175.30267.196.camel@eep> <1263276484.5579.32.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 22:08 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> In my opinion, the use of "search path" is unproblematic, provided it
> isn't nestled together with sense-1 paths. I would just call those
I think the more precise terms I mentioned should be used.
> and say straight out that this srfi establishes a syntax for
Okay, I'll incorporate such a statement.
> (In Unix--and let's be clear, this is really a Unix
It's a Unixoid and Windows SRFI, yes.
> directories *are* files
Regardless, they are semantically different and should be termed as
Thanks for the feedback,