Re: language standards

[jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <dewar.857664647@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> <<nope, it is not what I am saying (by any stretch of misinterpretation)>>
> 
> Jon said
> 
> <<Actually, on the face of it - it's precisely what you were saying.>>
> 
> Robert replies
> 
> nonsense! I guess you can stretch the art of wishful misinterpretation
> beyond any boundary I can imagine. Of course I did not say that there
> should not be any language standards. You cannot find any statement
> to that effect. You think you can prove it using some faulty
> syllogism based on your own ideas, i.e. you are saying something like

Let's have a simple recap, not your silly, phony, strawman syllogism:

Here is the exact exchange (from good ol' dejanews):

---------
Robert quotes:
<<<
Robert:
> to even considering elaborate pattern matching stuff, there are too
> many ways to approach this problem to decree one as standard. Similarly
> for GC, it is clear that there would be no consensus on this addition.

Jon:
There are "too many" ways to approach a language design to decree any
as standard.  Sounds pretty silly, eh?>>
>>>

And then replies:
Not to anyone with any experience in language standardization.
---------

Now, on the face of it, your sentence here says that it is not silly
to say that there are "too many" ways to approach a language design to
decree any as standard.  Tell us, what other possible meaning could
there be?

Now, you go on _later_ to _introduce_ the _new_ requirement of "and no
agreement".  Of course, you also go on to simply apriori _decree_ that
there could _not possibly_ be any agreement.  I suppose that's how you
got confused about it all.

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com