Property discussion wrap-up

[deadalnix]

On Sunday, 27 January 2013 at 17:37:29 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 January 2013 at 16:50:47 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> Off topic rant.
>>
>> I suppressed a counterexample in the section Optional 
>> parentheses
>> - Extra note .
>>
>> The note state that some stuff are valid for *function* and 
>> the counter example showed ambiguity using opCall. I don't 
>> know who did this and I don't care. I however can't stand 
>> intellectual dishonesty.
>
> It was me, sorry if I have offended you. I tend to read 
> "function" as "callable" if not mentioned otherwise and thus 
> was wandering how note refers to this case. This left 
> counter-example in hope that someone will comment it.
>
> Now I see that it should be better suited to discussion, but at 
> that time it was just curiosity, not desire to prove anything.

OK, let me restate that, as it was probably too strong.

We got to be pedantic on the vocabulary used. We are trying to 
define very precise stuffs. We cannot define anything with 
imprecise vocabulary.

Sorry for the intellectual dishonesty part, that was too much.