Subject: Re: (loop for ? in ? finally ?) From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no> Date: 2000/02/25 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3160491992791375@naggum.no> * "Fernando D. Mato Mira" <matomira@iname.com> | I've never seen redundancy as the primary reason ... I was referring to an inherent characteristic of human languages, and as such, redundancy is indeed a primary. indeed, some redundancy is a _good_ thing in human communication. that is, what might be considered "redundant" from a purist point of view is actually necessary to maintain proper communication conduits between people who can't pay 100% attention 100% of the time and who most certainly can't cope with 100% of the ramification of every statement 100% of the time. so we yield to the nature of the human mind instead of removing all forms of redundancy. #:Erik