Clarity vs. code reuse/generality

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <CuH4m.3259$ze1.429 at news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
Lie Ryan  <lie.1296 at gmail.com> wrote:
>Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 05:13:28 +0000, Lie Ryan wrote:
>>
>>> When people are fighting over things like `sense`, although sense may
>>> not be strictly wrong dictionary-wise, it smells of something burning...
>>
>> That would be my patience.
>>
>> I can't believe the direction this discussion has taken.
>
>Me neither.
>
>> Anybody sensible
>> would be saying "Oh wow, I've just learned a new meaning to the word,
>> that's great, I'm now less ignorant than I was a minute ago". But oh no,
>> we mustn't use a standard meaning to a word, heaven forbid we disturb
>> people's ignorance by teaching them something new.
>
>A meaning of a word is meaningless if nobody apart the writer
>understands it. The purpose of code is 1) to communicate with the

Exactly. And the OP teaches to scientist. They know sense in that
meaning. Maybe you don't, but that is irrelevant.

<SNIP>

Groetjes Albert.

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert at spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst