Pure functions in D (OT)

[Yigal Chripun]

BCS wrote:
> Reply to Yigal,
> 
>> LOL!
>> that's a good one.
>> but seriously, here's a Wikipedia quote for what I meant:
>>
>> "In standard English, you is both singular and plural; it always takes
>> a verb form that originally marked the word as plural, such as you
>> are. This was not always so. Early Modern English distinguished
>> between the plural you and the singular thou. This distinction was
>> lost in modern English due to the importation from France of a Romance
>> linguistic feature which is commonly called the T-V distinction."
>>
> 
> IIRC that shows up in the King James bible and as foot notes in the NIV.

I don't know what NIV is. I know that Shakespeare used it and it was
generally used as a less formal form. today, Ironically, it can be
considered as _more_ formal because it is no longer in day-to-day use.

> 
> (please ignore an non literary/linguistic aspects of that comment, One
> Theological thread a year is enough!)

sure thing ;) I totally agree
> 
>> there's also the "ye" form.
>>
> 
> There was a thread on that a while ago that brought up "ye" as a mangled
> version of the via the þ char that turned into y.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ye_(pronoun)
> 
> :þ
> 
>