| 1 |
On 20/09/2015 14:45, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sunday 20 September 2015 10:19:14 Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 09:34:57 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 4 |
>>>>> Strictly speaking, you don't have to do that with UUIDs as you can |
| 5 |
>>>>> change it to match the old one. That big advantage of labels is that |
| 6 |
>>>>> they are human-readable. |
| 7 |
>>>> |
| 8 |
>>>> Well I can read UUIDs, they are hex gibberish but still readable. |
| 9 |
>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>> Labels are human *understandable* |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> Well, it isn't often I can call someone else a pedant, but now's my big |
| 13 |
>>> chance so I'm taking it - pedant! |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> One of the OED definitions of readable is "interesting or pleasant to |
| 16 |
>> read". I stand by my original statement, argumentative pedants |
| 17 |
>> notwithstanding. :P |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I agree with you. It's Alan I called a pedant for trying to split hairs. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I guess that's what I get for trying to be excessively clever! |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> I had a trial version of OED* on my mobile, but it was not good so I've |
| 27 |
> reverted to Chambers, which includes "legible" as its first definition of |
| 28 |
> Readable, and "clear enough to be deciphered" as its first definition of |
| 29 |
> Legible. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> * Actually I think it was the ODE (the Oxford Dictionary of English), which |
| 32 |
> has been criticised widely and is not their best dictionary. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 38 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives