<br><br>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/11/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Laura Creighton</b> <<a href="mailto:lac@openend.se">lac@openend.se</a>> wrote:</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><< snip >></div>
<div><br> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">But again, the problem was that somebody had taught me that something<br>was _always true_ when the correct statement would be to say that
<br>_this is how we speak of it in this particular language community,<br>but other communities do it differently_.<br><br>So I'm a firm member of the 'give them as many languages as they<br>are willing to learn' crowd, at any age.
<br><br>my 0.10 euros,<br>Laura</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>I like your answer Laura. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>You're in effect reminding students that we have many </div>
<div>namespaces (a concept integral to Python), and the </div>
<div>very same word *need not* mean the very same thing </div>
<div>across namespaces. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>And thanks to dot notation, we have was to encapsulate </div>
<div>and insulate, to counter name collisions. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Something *like* dot notation, or dot notation itself, </div>
<div>would be welcome in philosophy, is my position on </div>
<div>wittgenstein-dialognet, precisely because philosophers </div>
<div>are always saying things like "if you don't mean </div>
<div>what *I* mean by 'gravity', why not call it 'shmavity' </div>
<div>instead?" </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Computer science offers a more elegant solution.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Kirby<br> </div>