🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4gkq6r$t7o@solutions.solon.com>
           mjs@hubcap.clemson.edu "M. J. Saltzman" writes:

 > mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) writes:
 > |fred@genesis.demon.co.uk (Lawrence Kirby) wrote:
 > 
 > |> > Indeed, this is an example of unnecessary redundancy.
 > 
 > |>Having reread that I think I'd rephrase it - redundancy is almost by
 > |>definition unnecessary! 'Redundancy with no benefit' is better.
 > 
 > |Why?  "Unnecessary redundancy" is a nice self-referential phrase.
 > 
 > Not in the least.  Would you classify the five flight control computers
 > on the space shuttle as "unnecessarily" redundant?  I'll bet the flight
 > crew would take exception.

That is a different context which gives the term 'redundancy' a slightly
different meaning. In that case redundancy implies some form of duplication
to permit continued operation when one (or possibly more) elements fail. 
In this case the redundancy describes something whose existence makes no
difference to the operation in any circumstances.

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------