Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
> > Once again: it's meaningless to reject a definition if you're not
> > going to provide a better one in its place.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 04:44:34PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Not true. It is my position that we do not need to write or adopt a
> definition at all. I don't want you to change the status quo in this
> regard; I don't want *any* definition to be adopted. We already have
> the term; it has a meaning; it has served us well.
> I am not obliged to propose a different departure just to object to
> the departure you want to make. I want to leave things as they are
> (with respect to the definition of "source code").
I'll agree that you're not under any obligation to provide a suitable
definition in the same way you're not obliged to make sense.
Frankly, I don't see that that definition has the flaws you've claimed
it has. [For example, if there are equivalent representations and one
is the preferred form then any of them are the preferred form.]
Anyways, status quo is: some of us use a definition of "source code"
which you disagree with.