From: Jamis Buck <jgb3@...>
Date: 2004-08-22T05:17:30+09:00
Subject: Re: This naughty language of ours violates hallowed Structure Programming sophistries

Phlip wrote:
> David A. Black wrote:
> 
> 
>>The "in theory" bit is a little damning, since it suggests that Ruby's
>>design in this regard violates some general theory or principle, which
>>I don't think it does.  Having 'if' be of flat scope is a different
>>*practice* than other languages, but I don't think there's any
>>theoretical mandate to do it one way or the other.
> 
> 
> Guys, everyone needs to look "sophistries" up in a dictionary.
> 

 From m-w.com:

"Sophistry: (noun) subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation"

Hmmm. I don't see how David's comment in any way fits that definition. 
Could you be a little more explicit in your accusation? I personally 
concur with David's statement.

- Jamis

-- 
Jamis Buck
jgb3@email.byu.edu
http://www.jamisbuck.org/jamis

"I use octal until I get to 8, and then I switch to decimal."