POSIX bashing (readline bashing)

[John F Haugh II]

In article <1991Apr11.152219.26318 at phri.nyu.edu> roy at phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes:
>decot at hpisod2.cup.hp.com (Dave Decot) writes:
>> If you think that the fact that something is a suffix means it can be
>> applied to anything, you're not a very good studant.
>
>	But, if you *don't* think that the fact that something is a suffix
>means it can be applied to anything, you're not a very good hacker.

I don't think I ever implied that "-ant" can be applied to "anything".
While "compliant" and "conformant" and "expectant" all seem to be quite
valid, it should be slightly obvious that there are no such words as
"thinkant" or "runant" or "programmant".

I have vague memories of a time when "database" was still two words.
Such are the joys of a living language ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II        | Distribution to  | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 | GEnie PROHIBITED :-) |  Domain: jfh at rpp386.cactus.org
"If liberals interpreted the 2nd Amendment the same way they interpret the
 rest of the Constitution, gun ownership would be mandatory."