why not "'in' in 'in'"?

[Grant Griffin]

In article <aeakd1$2lg$1 at bob.news.rcn.net>, "Raymond says...
>
>"Grant Griffin" <not.this at seebelow.org> wrote in message
>news:aeac0l013k at drn.newsguy.com...
>> Yes, guilty as charged!  Here's an example of my poor taste.  Since "find"
>is
>> sort of a boolean concept ("I found/didn't find my tennis shoes"), and
>since the
>> "find" function really returns the index (position) of a substring, I
>probably
>> would have called it "position" or maybe just "pos" (in admiration for
>BASIC).
>
>Where did you find your tennis shoes?  When you set out to find your tennis
>shoes did you want to know where they were or just whether they were
>findable?  IMHO, it would be strange to find your shoes and then not know
>where they are.

Clearly you've never met my shoes <wink>.  (BTW, are you under age 30?)

Of course, it makes perfectly good sense to report the position along with the
find, if you wish, e.g., "I found my tennis shoes under the driveway."  But as
my sentence at top exemplifies, reporting a find brings with it no obligation to
report the location where found.  Unless you're thinking of the "location"
function.

i-shouldda-been-a-lawyer-ly y'rs,

=g2

_________________________________________________________________________

Grant R. Griffin                                           g2 at dspguru.com
Publisher of dspGuru                               http://www.dspguru.com
Iowegian International Corporation                http://www.iowegian.com