Andrew,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">And I guess you could expand "fun int" into something like "fun,<br>
in't?" which probably only sounds right if you've been hanging out<br>
some drunk Brits.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>That might be it but I look at "int" functions as being more analytical types (clearly they are INTelligent) and the "float" ones as more hippy-ish fellows. I'm not sure what "dur" functions are like, maybe I don't typically have too many of those for that reason.<br>
</div></div><br>Perhaps we also need to have "progressive" functions to offset the static ones?<br><br>At least Function Character Theory confirms that sproking is a bit naughty, with only the nihilistic (and so not believing in objective and universal morality) void functions doing it.<br>
<br>At least it's clear that they are all fun so it's all good.<br><br>Kas.<br>