Scripsit Paul Hedderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:33:50PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Scripsit Paul Hedderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> What you are showing here is that "code that can be compiled" is not a
>> working defintion of "source code".
> It not only works, but has been used for a long time.
No it hasn't. Nobody has ever claimed that, say, Bison output
qualifies as "source code" even though it is evidently compilable.
At least not until the recent influx of people who want to force
Debian to use a free-as-in-beer definition of freedom instead of
time-honored free-as-in-speech.
> What you are showing is that you have a dislike for source that is hard
> to modify (fair enough) and would like for it not to be called 'source
> code' if you feel it is hard to read/modify.
Strawman. Under that definition all code in a language that somebody
doesn't understand would cease to be source code either. That is
obviously not workable either.
> it literally means code that can be used to generate a binary.
No it doesn't.
--
Henning Makholm "Ambiguous cases are defined as those for which the
compiler being used finds a legitimate interpretation
which is different from that which the user had in mind."
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
