KDE 4.0.0!

[Ignazio Palmisano]

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Ignazio Palmisano wrote:
> 
>> Derek Broughton wrote:
>>> Billie Walsh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sylviane et Perry White wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday 17 January 2008 16:24, Wulfy wrote:
>>>>>   
>>>>>> By synecdoche[0], KDE 4.0 *is* KDE4... to say it's not KDE4 implies
>>>>>> it's not even *part* of KDE4, which is patently false...
>>>>>>     
>>>>> Well... I'm not mankind and that implies I'm not even part of it,
>>>>> doesn't it? The OP just meant you can't juge a set from one of its
>>>>> parts.
>>> Er, no.  You are not _all_ mankind, yet it's perfectly acceptable to say
>>> that you _are_ mankind (odd, yes; archaic, certainly; but still correct).
>>>
>>>> However, as there are no other parts at this time, KDE 4.0.0 would the
>>>> "whole" of KDE4. Therefore KDE 4.0.0 = KDE4 and KDE4 = KDE 4.0.0 .
>>> Impeccable logic :-)
>> Unfortunately it is wrong :) a container is not equal to the things it
>> contains, even if it only contains one; the only exception being a
>> container which contains itself.
>>
> Not buying it.  KDE 4 isn't a container.  At this time, it _is_ KDE 4.0.0.


:) from what I've read that's what the developers mean when they refer 
to KDE4, a series of software products (container, class, series, 
category... change logic name change the name of the thing, but it's 
always the same and it's a set). On the other hand, I think for many out 
here KDE4 refers to the most recent version of KDE (so that we will call 
KDE4 KDE 4.4.4, when it will be around), in which case KDE4 is KDE 4.0.0 
:) no one is wrong or right in this case, the trouble is using the same 
name meaning different things.

I.


-- 
Ignazio Palmisano
Ph.D. - ignazio dot palmisano at gmail dot com