KDE 4.0.0!

[Billie Walsh]

Ignazio Palmisano wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>   
Isn't language, and playing with words, fun. :D