Re: [s-d] [s-b] Beast Trick - nday 1, nweek 155

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ehird wrote:

> On 25 Jan 2009, at 04:27, Ed Murphy wrote:
> 
>> Ordinary language is implicitly accepted.  What about common technical
>> jargon, which concept the relevant ex-rule matched?
> 
> It was not the same as SQL transactions.

It was, in the overall sense of "this should either work completely or
have no effect", with assertions borrowed from other fields as shorthand
for "if the assertion is false then rollback".  What other significant
sense do you have in mind?

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss