Re: Anton's amendment
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 10:33:23AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 03:17:03PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> writes:
> >
> > > no, code in a program could never be a secondary section. it is
> > > inherently the "primary topic" of the work - which automatically
> > > excludes it from being secondary.
> >
> > It seems to me that this cannot quite be right, at least, not in the
> > way craig intends it.
>
> you are wrong, and your tortured attempt at a tautology is bogus.
Actually, I thought he had a reasonable argument. Sure, it's easy to say
that there's a distinction between 'text with a technical subject
matter' and 'text with a non-technical subject matter', but the same is
true for, say, a grep tool with a sort plugin. The 'primary' subject of
the code of that grep tool would be the actual regex code and the
ability to output lines that match your regular expression; the
'secondary' subject of the code would be the sorting.
Why would there be a difference with documentation? This is a serious
question, not a joke.
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4
Reply to: