From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,99ab4bb580fc34cd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Subject: Re: Q: access to subprogram
Date: 1996/07/17
Message-ID: <4sjntj$9kv@news.nyu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 169438393
references: <4sdt1i$nqa@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <dewar.837456126@schonberg>
 <4sjbjc$pae@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <4sjbjc$pae@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) writes:
>Yes, that's what I meant, moot as in "no longer important in practice,
>relevant only for hypothetical debate (e.g. at a moot [in law,
>students' discussion of hypothetical case for practice] ;-)",
>not moot as in "debatable".

>I suspect that when Richard Kenner introduced the word in the article
>to which I was replying, he meant it in the same "doesn't matter any
>more" sense, rather than in the "debatable" sense that you think he
>meant.  Perhaps Richard could enlighten us? ;-)

Yes, that's correct.