Re: RM and abstract syntax trees
From: David BL <davidbl_at_iinet.net.au>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 04:58:06 -0800
Message-ID: <1194699486.627744.172670_at_q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 04:58:06 -0800
Message-ID: <1194699486.627744.172670_at_q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 10, 2:52 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Ugh. The whole thing is very tiresome. I have made quite a few
> distinctions besides just that one. I've said repeatedly that there
> are many similarities. I've even said that one can make an
> (incomplete) abstraction in which they are the same. But
> apparently that's not enough for you, and you want me
> to say they are the same in all ways, which they are not.
>
> I think I've said everything I want to say now.
Well yes, it is tiresome and more to the point an insignificant detail. Who really cares exactly what a pointer is? For the most part I think we agree and that's good enough for me. Received on Sat Nov 10 2007 - 13:58:06 CET