From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: [External] : Re: Morally equivalent Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2022 18:20:52 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87h7045ted.fsf@web.de> <25420.6251.389377.498369@tux.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="imX+WQ9QcZgts8d/" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="16525"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 16 18:24:06 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ok6Qo-00041F-Gs for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 18:24:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60336 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ok6Qn-0002Jq-H3 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 12:24:05 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51500) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ok6Nk-0007D4-Ob for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 12:20:57 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.tuxteam.de ([5.199.139.25]:57450) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ok6Ni-0001ki-V0 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 12:20:56 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tuxteam.de; s=mail; h=From:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:To:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=Iz3SUB4jxuhqTBh+qAn1C9FXO2BX7sxT3zobAatWxyY=; b=iw3ju6R6bwNW3RDl5MYFQdcRac wbFtJZnjcLvO6xVw1KVp/F03KSrgtW8SWEFrQZyTGqK0U13qcDa6hWDu+1bYbEEnt2wrBJ/T6a9Ic QtBSDU7qmNqMLpaFUojoBI97STYCOHvNHDv3+TsXHHN2HXwK6B7eEfYfQg74PpKDvvRERqoCJR/YU lQjsQjktp8+okrG3d48ANF49Me8QhS50JCt7qLB3EoZIhwoQxpSXRNcha6phUJLl9CPD+r2xbQLRo h7vkU5VxUWdRfF0yE58Z1zPxIIFxmqb4Wl4GH6a4XlZui1B9pBNoziKJQPDwixPk+0vRGc98pKl9j 1WBG7ZoA==; Original-Received: from tomas by mail.tuxteam.de with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1ok6Ng-0007qC-9E for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 18:20:52 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=5.199.139.25; envelope-from=tomas@tuxteam.de; helo=mail.tuxteam.de X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.help:139996 Archived-At: --imX+WQ9QcZgts8d/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 03:02:31PM +0000, Drew Adams wrote: > > > > > What is a 'moral equivalence' in Emacs Lisp? > > > > > > Probably just meant "no better or worse" (and not morally). > >=20 > > Could it be that the writer of that docstring had > >=20 > > ... is NORMALLY equivalent ... > >=20 > > in mind? >=20 > Yes, could well be. Maybe accidental. More likely > intentional, as Michael offered: "Only that kind of > slightly funny language Stefan sometimes uses I guess." Actually, I knew "moral equivalence" as a sloppy and idiomatic way of stating "equivalent under some criteria of interest in the current context" (of course, the criteria and the context are left unspecified ;-) The discussion led me to some research [1], and yikes. That rabbit hole was dark and deep indeed... Cheers [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_equivalent --=20 t --imX+WQ9QcZgts8d/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EABECAB0WIQRp53liolZD6iXhAoIFyCz1etHaRgUCY0wvXQAKCRAFyCz1etHa RkbdAJ9JuGW7yIYcWSSe4RJHxrg2ZXTEhgCfe0ALMXEfbhYsYLOfXtX1BU4io0E= =Pa+4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --imX+WQ9QcZgts8d/--