| 1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 10:03 on Friday 20 August 2010, Neil Bothwick |
| 2 |
did opine thusly: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:38:10 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 5 |
> > No, it isn't. You may be being confused by the unnecessary inclusion of |
| 6 |
> > brackets (parentheses if you're American); |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> If you're British too: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Defined usage: |
| 11 |
> () parentheses |
| 12 |
> [] brackets |
| 13 |
> {} braces |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> General usage: |
| 16 |
> () brackets |
| 17 |
> [] square brackets |
| 18 |
> {} curly brackets |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I'll let you decide which is the more intuitive usage. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The former, obviously. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Stuff has names, people should learn the names. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
"Arrogant jerk on second floor with a beard and no head hair" is definitely |
| 27 |
more intuitive to my new staff, but for anyone here longer than a week it is |
| 28 |
far simpler to just use the name of the thing instead of some description, and |
| 29 |
refer to me as "Alan" |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives