Dan Espen <daneNO@spam.mk.telcordia.com> wrote:
> ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es (Peter T. Breuer) writes:
> 
>
> What are you going on about now?

That * specifies a range does not make it a range-specifier. Is it so
hard for you to understand? I put a lot of effort into making it clear
to you! Cow are animals. Not all animals are cows.

 
>
> I think my statement was clear enough, the man page describes "*" as
> range.  I don't like it, but thats what it does.

No it doesn't!  Will you PLEASE stop this!  The distinction between
syntax and semantics is well known to all of us, except possibly to you.
The MEANING of * is "the full range of values".  That MEANS that it
specifies a range.  That does not make it a range-specifier.  A
range-specifier is a SYNTACTIC construction, consisting of a constant, a
minus sign, and another constant.  An example is

1-7

Clear?
 
>
> I assume this would be precluded too:
>
> 0-59,0-59

??? I don't understand what you mean.

> That doesn't make 0-59 any less of a range.

It MEANS a range. It IS a range-specifier.

"*" also MEANS a range of values. It is NOT a range-specifier.

 
>
> I read that 5 times and still don't see the relevance.

Then get it for gods sake -  the rest of the world cannot slow down and
wait for you to catch up with concepts that were common in logic and
linguistics at the time of Lewis Carroll!
 
>
> Now is what clear?

That "*" is not a range-specifier! It specifies a range of values. That
does not make it a range-specifier. Like semi-colon separates a
sentence into two parts, but that does not make it a comma.

Jeezus man. Thoughtful articulation is just wasted on you. One might as
well just hit you until you agree you get it.

Let me remind you of Carroll's illustration to Alice of the difference
between the name of a thing and the meaning of a thing:

``You are sad'', the Knight said in an anxious tone: ``let me sing
you a song to comfort you.''

``Is it very long?'' Alice asked, for she had heard a good deal of
poetry that day.

``It's long,'' said the Knight, ``but it's very, very beautiful.
Everybody that hears me sing it - either it brings the tears into
their eyes, or else -''

``Or else what?'' said Alice, for the Knight had made a sudden pause.

``Or else it doesn't, you know. The name of the song is called
'Haddocks' Eyes'.''

``Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?'' Alice said, trying to
feel interested.

``No, you don't understand,'' the Knight said, looking a little
vexed. ``That is what the name is called. The name really is 'The
Aged Aged Man'.''

``Then I ought to have said 'That's what the song is called?' ''
Alice corrected herself.

``No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The song is called
`Ways And Means': but that's only what it's called, you know!''

``Well, what is the song, then?'' said Alice, who was by this time
completely bewildered.

``I was coming to that,'' the Knight said. ``The song really is
`A-sitting On A Gate': and the tune's my own invention.''

OK? The name of the song is "The Aged Aged Man". The name of the name
of the song is "Haddocks' Eyes".  What the song IS is "A-sitting On A
Gate".  The name of that reference is "Ways And Means".


Clear?

Let's put it this way. The VALUE (semantics) of the song is something
we know as "A-sitting On A Gate". I presume it is a well-known ditty
composed by King Arthur. There is a POINTER to it (how we can CALL it)
of value "Ways And Means". So the address "Ways And Means", when
dereferenced, gives us the value "A-sitting On A Gate". Now there is
a variable containing this value and it is "The Aged Aged Man" (well,
it beats "x"). There is a pointer to where the name
"The Aged Aged Man" is kept in the variable called "Haddocks' Eyes".
Call by name twice on "Haddock' Eyes" gives us the song "A-sitting On
A Gate".

Better?

Now do you understand that an asterisk is not a range-specifier. It
specifies a range. A semi-colon is not a comma. It separates a sentence
into two parts.



Peter

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]