On 18 August 2010 23:19, Sean Miller <s...@seanmiller.net> wrote: > On 18 August 2010 18:11, Colin Law <clan...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> I did not say that it was necessarily a generally accepted definition, >> merely that by that definition GIMP is recursive and therefore my >> original statement that 'it depends on the definition' is true. >> Having said that I believe I have seen that definition used somewhere >> on the web so it must be ok. I will just have a quick google ... Ah >> yes, have a look at >> http://old.nabble.com/11.04-Natty-Narwhal-td29463807i20.html#a29470562 > > Except that Wikipedia says no such thing, so you are deluding yourself > completely...
I never said it did, that was someone else, he/she was deluding him/her self. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_acronym > > So, please, before we all lose the will to live instead of INVENTING > definitions to back up your assertion, try sending some LINKS to ANY > definition that suggests GIMP is recursive, for it is not and will > never be so... unless you prove otherwise. Note that I never asserted that GIMP is a recursive algorithm, and agree with you that anyone who believes that is incorrect. I merely pointed out that by an alternative definition of recursive acronym it could be considered so and provided a vaguely believable definition to that end. An entirely pointless thing to do I know, merely intended as a way to keep the brain cells active. The whole point of a recursive acronym is after all that it is a light hearted play on words and letters. I was merely pressing on along that path. I don't think that the concept of Recursive Acronyms was ever supposed to be taken seriously. Colin -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
