JOG wrote:
> erk wrote:
> > Thanks, I will look at the above. I thought the terminology was fairly
> > ill-defined. Is it in the same state as O-O, where there are various
> > theories but nothing cohesive or consistently applied?
>
> Yes you've hit the nail on the head. The definitions are accepted, but
> are extremely wooly and lack formality.
Ugh. Accepted-but-ill-defined is a poor foundation for much discussion,
then. Sounds like we're better off trying our own definitions, and I
think the discussion rests on a basic dictionary definition of
"structure."
Received on Thu Aug 17 2006 - 06:51:19 CDT
