![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#21
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Barry Kelly" <barry.j.kelly (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:t444l3lvb2sv10k5iuqjdi3odvigkb3qig (AT) 4ax (DOT) com... Scott M. wrote: My questions have been about the observable results, not the purpose or under the hood benefits of generics. I am asking for academic reasons. Then there's a direct logical contradiction in your position: your questions are for the "reasons", but not the "purpose" - but the purpose is the reason! You're drawing equivalence where there is none: His reasons (asserted to be academic) for studying generics need not be the same as the language designers' purpose for providing generics, even if the words "reasons" and "purpose" be synonyms. |
#22
| |||
| |||
|
|
Ben Voigt [C++ MVP] wrote: "Barry Kelly" <barry.j.kelly (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:t444l3lvb2sv10k5iuqjdi3odvigkb3qig (AT) 4ax (DOT) com... Scott M. wrote: My questions have been about the observable results, not the purpose or under the hood benefits of generics. I am asking for academic reasons. Then there's a direct logical contradiction in your position: your questions are for the "reasons", but not the "purpose" - but the purpose is the reason! You're drawing equivalence where there is none: His reasons (asserted to be academic) for studying generics need not be the same as the language designers' purpose for providing generics, even if the words "reasons" and "purpose" be synonyms. No, I misread his last sentence: when he said he was asking for academic reasons, I interpreted that as him asking for the academic reasons behind the design of generics, not that his reasons for asking were academic. |
|
-- Barry -- http://barrkel.blogspot.com/ |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
| |