Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
> Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
> > If we take "program" to mean "a sequence of instructions that a computer
> > can interpret and execute", then it's reasonable to consider a font file
> > as instructions on how to render characters in that font.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 04:21:28PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sure, but not bitmaps. Bitmaps are not "sequences of instructions".
Why not?
Looking at the first definition that comes up on a google
define:instruction search, I see "a message describing how something is
to be done"
Maybe you're thinking of another definition: "A single command in the
assembly language of the CPU"? But if that's the case then either (a)
elisp files do not represent instructions, or (b) font files do.
If they were "not instructions" then I'd think that any rendition of
the font would be acceptable. Who cares if the letter A looks like the
letter Z?
I'll grant that the instructions are pretty bloody simple (when
rendering this character, use these bits), but that doesn't make them
"not instructions".
--
Raul
Reply to: