From xod@xxxx.xxxx Fri Feb 19 14:32:14 1999 X-Digest-Num: 66 Message-ID: <44114.66.283.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 17:32:14 -0500 (EST) From: xod From: Christopher Palmer > > On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, xod wrote: > > > > Show me a language that *doesn't* rely heavily on metaphor, and I'll > > > show you a proglang. :^) > > > > Every library call is a metaphor. > > Not so. Libraries are additions to the 'dictionary' of primitive > functions; they are lexical, not metaphoric. If I say to you "a stitch in time...", you know what I mean. I didn't make it explicit in my text; it was commonly understood. If I use a library call to process a JPEG, the reader of the source code, whether human or compiler, knows what I mean. I didn't make it explicit in my source; it was commonly understood. > The lexicon is built up from primitives not by analogy with > (prog)linguistic extra-(prog)linguistic context, but by the direct logical > consequences of the primitves themselves. Metaphor is inherently tied to > context, and proglangs are by design context-independent. Everything is context-independent if your scope is broad enough. There is only one universe, and it only happens once. Where do you choose to draw your dotted lines? ----- How's my typing? 1 (800) 243-6624