English Dictionary: restriction | by the DICT Development Group |
4 results for restriction | |
From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]: | |
| |
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]: | |
Restriction \Re*stric"tion\, n. [F. restriction, L. restrictio.] 1. The act of restricting, or state of being restricted; confinement within limits or bounds. This is to have the same restriction with all other recreations,that it be made a divertisement. --Giv. of Tonque. 2. That which restricts; limitation; restraint; as, restrictions on trade. | |
From Jargon File (4.2.0, 31 JAN 2000) [jargon]: | |
restriction n. A {bug} or design error that limits a program's capabilities, and which is sufficiently egregious that nobody can quite work up enough nerve to describe it as a {feature}. Often used (esp. by {marketroid} types) to make it sound as though some crippling bogosity had been intended by the designers all along, or was forced upon them by arcane technical constraints of a nature no mere user could possibly comprehend (these claims are almost invariably false). Old-time hacker Joseph M. Newcomer advises that whenever choosing a quantifiable but arbitrary restriction, you should make it either a power of 2 or a power of 2 minus 1. If you impose a limit of 107 items in a list, everyone will know it is a random number -- on the other hand, a limit of 15 or 16 suggests some deep reason (involving 0- or 1-based indexing in binary) and you will get less {flamage} for it. Limits which are round numbers in base 10 are always especially suspect. | |
From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (15Feb98) [foldoc]: | |
restriction A {bug} or design error that limits a program's capabilities, and which is sufficiently egregious that nobody can quite work up enough nerve to describe it as a {feature}. Often used (especially by {marketroid} types) to make it sound as though some crippling bogosity had been intended by the designers all along, or was forced upon them by arcane technical constraints of a nature no mere user could possibly comprehend (these claims are almost invariably false). Old-time hacker Joseph M. Newcomer advises that whenever choosing a quantifiable but arbitrary restriction, you should make it either a power of 2 or a power of 2 minus 1. If you impose a limit of 17 items in a list, everyone will know it is a random number - on the other hand, a limit of 15 or 16 suggests some deep reason (involving 0- or 1-based indexing in binary) and you will get less {flamage} for it. Limits which are round numbers in base 10 are always especially suspect. [{Jargon File}] |