Conrad Schneiker wrote:


> A bit off topic here, but what you seem to be thinking of is a very common
> *misquote*.

> What (IIRC) Hobbes actually said was that "a FOOLISH consistency ...".


Yep; it's an overused misquote.


> There are many types of consistency, corresponding in part to many types of
> purposeful categorization, ranging from foolish to valuable.


I agree with anyone stating that "foolish consistency" is foolish.
That might be the case when all other aspects are disregarded, just for 
the sake of nitpicking and hairsplitting.

But it's pretty boring to apply the quote without explaining what's 
foolish about the consistency.

Consistency itself is always good.

In trade-offs it might get assigned a priority other than highest,
when circumstances require that other aspects get assigned higher 
priorities.

Anyways: inconsistency itself, without a reason, can not be called 
advantageous.

IMHO:
People thinking consistency in language design and human interfaces
is boring should look for interesting things other than inconsistency.

Tobi
-- 
http://www.pinkjuice.com/