From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: (loop for ? in ? finally ?) Date: 2000/02/25 Message-ID: <3160491992791375@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 590121889 References: <38B55CF2.1B67F549@iname.com> <38B66866.551F304A@iname.com> <87g0uh31xt.fsf@orion.dent.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de> <38B69611.C9220AFC@iname.com> <3160481213819408@naggum.no> <38B6BA46.3C0BFBD9@iname.com> mail-copies-to: never Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 951533604 29878 195.0.192.66 (26 Feb 2000 02:53:24 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879 or +1 510 435 8604; fax: +47 2210 9077; http://www.naggum.no User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Feb 2000 02:53:24 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * "Fernando D. Mato Mira" | 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