🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <722061195@sheol.UUCP> throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>: From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
>: Message-ID: <Bxv2t2.4FH@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
>: I have given examples.  Some have even introduced conflicts with previous
>: notation in the computer field.  A brief repetition of some of them is in
>: order.
>:         The use of | for or. [...]
>:         The use of ^ for exclusive or. [...]
>:         using * for indirection, [...]
>:         using & for  "address of", 
>:         Even the use of ; as a statement end conflicts with mathematical
>: 	notation almost two centuries old. 
>: SOME of this may have been inadvertent, and due to the ignorance of those
>: introducing the notation.  

			......................

>In the second place, Herman's claim that the above "notation conflicts"
>or "obfuscations" are *intended* to conflict or obscure is just silly. 
>It is fairly clear that the oritinators simply didn't *care* about the
>conflict with notations used to express completely different concepts,
>and were simply consuming characters from their palatte of available
>characters without much *attention* to conflict or obfuscation, let
>alone intent.  

It has been pointed out that there were other possibilities from the
palette of available characters.  And if they didn't *care*, as you 
put it, which I am almost sure most of them will deny, that is an
explicit statement to the mathematical and scientific community that
they will have to establish their own CS programs to develop it, and
consider what the CS language guys are doing as no more relevant than
natural language research into Nostratic.  Now I did not say that they
did not care, you did.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)