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: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Q: access to subprogram Date: 1996/07/20 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 169275324 references: <4sbtc5$uej@news.nyu.edu> <4sdt1i$nqa@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <4sr6ad$3tj@felix.seas.gwu.edu> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Micheal said "Actually, the "unfortunate" US usage of "moot" is quite normal in legal circles, and has been for a long time. Courts will use the term to mean a legal issue they don't have to worry about deciding, because the conditions in the suit were overtaken by events, or some other such cause." That's confused -- look up moot in any legal dictionary, and you will find the first definition only -- that is the legal definition. A moot issue is one that is undecided, and hence arguable. When a judge declares an issue moot, he is declaring that the court will not decide the issue. The reasons for this may be many, and sometimes an observer thinking in terms of the second definition will find it consistent, but it is always the first meaning that is operable -- the court will leave the decision undecided! A moot court is one that considers an undecided arguable issue, again, only the first definition applies.