<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 9, 2016, at 12:10 PM, Charles Kissinger <<a href="mailto:crk@akkyra.com" class="">crk@akkyra.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 8, 2016, at 1:52 PM, Austin Zheng <<a href="mailto:austinzheng@gmail.com" class="">austinzheng@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">'Fixity' already has a non-technical meaning ("the state of being unchanged and permanent"), and an unrelated technical one (a synonym for associativity; search "assocativity fixity operator" for examples). If we're using it in this different way, I respectfully submit that we should reconsider.</div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="">You are correct, of course, but a subset of computer scientists have been abusing the term in this way for at least a couple of decades. Their novel usage of “fixity” now has a degree of fixity, so it may be too late to fix "fixity".</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">It's become a termity of art.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-- E</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>