Re: on waste-of-time arguments....

Show/hide message thread

on waste-of-time arguments.... Thomas Lord (19 Jul 2005 23:52 UTC)

Re: on waste-of-time arguments.... John.Cowan (20 Jul 2005 02:57 UTC)

Re: on waste-of-time arguments.... Thomas Bushnell BSG (20 Jul 2005 03:04 UTC)

Re: on waste-of-time arguments.... John.Cowan (20 Jul 2005 04:42 UTC)

Re: on waste-of-time arguments.... Thomas Bushnell BSG (20 Jul 2005 04:53 UTC)

Re: on waste-of-time arguments.... John.Cowan (20 Jul 2005 05:04 UTC)

Re: on waste-of-time arguments.... Thomas Bushnell BSG (20 Jul 2005 05:14 UTC)

Re: on waste-of-time arguments.... John.Cowan 20 Jul 2005 05:03 UTC

Thomas Bushnell BSG scripsit:

> I think you have it backwards.  7.1 is not the normative section, 2.1
> is.

So the formal stuff in section 7 is non-normative, and the informal stuff
in sections 1-6 is normative?  I find that surprising, though not absolutely
astonishing.  In particular, that means that a mismatch between the number
of actual and formal parameters is allowed, as is + applied to a non-number
and CAR to a non-pair?  These things are only forbidden in 7.2.

--
John Cowan      xxxxxx@reutershealth.com        http://www.reutershealth.com
        "Not to know The Smiths is not to know K.X.U."  --K.X.U.