Andrew, And I guess you could expand "fun int" into something like "fun,
in't?" which probably only sounds right if you've been hanging out some drunk Brits.
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. Perhaps we also need to have "progressive" functions to offset the static ones? 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. At least it's clear that they are all fun so it's all good. Kas.