2 ms·
We are talking about function declaration not implementation, right? The expression A = A can be trivially re-written in another notation as equal(A,A). The r
by ukj 5y ago
We are talking about function declaration not implementation, right?
The expression A = A can be trivially re-written in another notation as equal(A,A).
The reason you don't question the implementation of the equal() function is because it's declared as being true
however it's implemented.
So, I declare f() != f() as being true. I also declare that f() takes no arguments. All I am doing is translating (transpiling?) English into Ruby.
"Now is not now" => "Time.now != Time.now"
Talking about function arguments is not even in point. What's the argument to now() in English?
- dragonwriter 5y ago> All I am doing is translating (transpiling?) English into Ruby. Incorrectly. > "Now is not now" => "Time.now != Time.now" Sure, “Now (pointedly looks at watch) is not now (pointedly looks at watch)” is true, and the equivalent of the Ruby. Ruby expressions lack the implicit simultaneity that English sentences wthout some contextual signal of explicit time dependency have, and your mistranslation ignores this.
- ukj 5y agoWhere is the "explicit simultinaity" in looking at your watch twice? The English and Ruby terms map 1:1. Now(Time.now) is not(!=) Now (Time.now) Why do you call the correct "incorrect"?
- dragonwriter 5y ago> Where is the "explicit simultinaity" in looking at your watch twice? Nowhere; that's the contextual signal that defeats the implicit simultaneity the English sentence would have without that body language.
- ukj 5y agoSo you looked at your watch twice at the same time? The English sentence "Now is not Now" describes my thought process (1st person view), not my body language (3rd person view). My thought process occurs over time. Exactly like the Ruby process.