Being a programmer the word until annoys me because is imprecise. According to the free dictionary:

·Up to the time of

·Before(a specified time)

So in the first one, it arrives at the object of action and perhaps finishes it(closed limit on the set.) But in the second one doesn't (open limit on the set.)

For example:
I ate until I was satisfied (not after being satisfied, but at least it arrived to satisfaction by inference, closed limit on the set.)

I ate before I was satisfied (not arriving at satisfaction, open limit on the set)

She sat until I came back (not after, but up to)

We stop working until our manager says so (work before the event, stop after the event)

He can't accept the invitation until I approve it(before, not up to)

#!/usr/bin/ruby

until okay? do
    okay!
end

Quite

Being a programmer the word until annoys me because is imprecise. According to the free dictionary:

·Up to the time of

·Before(a specified time)

So in the first one, it arrives at the object of action and perhaps finishes it(closed limit on the set.) But in the second one doesn't (open limit on the set.)

For example:
I ate until I was satisfied (not after being satisfied, but at least it arrived to satisfaction by inference, closed limit on the set.)

I ate before I was satisfied (not arriving at satisfaction, open limit on the set)

She sat until I came back (not after, but up to)

We stop working until our manager says so (work before the event, stop after the event)

He can't accept the invitation until I approve it(before, not up to)[/it]

I think the problem is that you are trying to divide time into two segments and figure out which one the event should go in. But the concept "until" actually works with the idea that the time is divided into three segments, or perhaps two segments and a point, which is a degenerate case of a segment. The event is like a fence between two fields - it's not inside either field, it's a transition between them. Like this:

Segment 1: I was eating/we were working/she was waiting/he isn't able to accept the invitation

Segment 2: I stopped eating/we stopped working/she stopped waiting/I approve the invitation

Segment 3: I was not eating/we were not working/she was not waiting/he is able to accept the invitation

Completely consistent ^_^

Try learning French, and learn words like e.g. jamais. Which can, depending on context, mean:

• never
• ever / at all
• forever

As in, the same word means:

I've never seen him before.

I will forever love you.

Did you ever try reading my mail at all?

Or try German where "until" is a homonyme of the past tense of "to bite" and its substantive, and you have homonymes between the neutral article and a conjunction which loosely corresponds to "that" (and a few other meanings).

By the way, what is the exact unique meaning of static or using in C++?

By the way, what is the exact unique meaning of static or using in C++?

That's a good one. Even programming languages have their caveats. Those keywords mean different things depending on the context.

= assignment, instead of equality, ! and ~ being logical and bitwise not respectively, are discordant with their mathematical counterparts, and so on.

I think that the most confusing part is that:

I ate until I was satisfied (not after being satisfied, but at least it arrived to satisfaction by inference, closed limit on the set.)

until refers to the predicate's first clause succession of validity

 
 'Until' validates this section
|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
    I ate                                |      No more eating
                                Satisfaction achieved
 

Whilst in this other case with stop doing something:

We stop working until our manager says so (work before the event, stop after the event)

 
                                                 'Until' validates this section
|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
             We work                     |      We stop working
                                Our manager says so
 

We stop working until our manager says so (work before the event, stop after the event)

So this is valid english? I had no idea, as a non-native english user, this sentence just confuse me...

For example:
I ate until I was satisfied (not after being satisfied, but at least it arrived to satisfaction by inference, closed limit on the set.)
I ate before I was satisfied (not arriving at satisfaction, open limit on the set)
She sat until I came back (not after, but up to)
We stop working until our manager says so (work before the event, stop after the event)
He can't accept the invitation until I approve it(before, not up to)

Refactor the sentence. Until triggers the action (looks like it triggers an opposite).

satisfied is the trigger which triggers "stop eating."

"came back" is the trigger which triggers "stop sitting"

manager saying so is the trigger which triggers "start working."

So, when you are satisfied you stop eating.

When you come back, they stop sitting.

When the manger says so, you start working.

Oh, silly English, with its ambiguous meanings and constructs.

There is no doubt the worst word in the history of the English language is "should" as in "should have". I would predict that single word has caused more untold human suffering than any other.

'Until' is not a particularly egregious offender. The fact that it designates neither an open nor a close time interval is generally irrelevant outside of discussions of Xeno's paradox.

We stop working until our manager says so (work before the event, stop after the event)

He can't accept the invitation until I approve it(before, not up to)

If we stop working until our manager says so, it means we do not work before the event, then start working (or not, it's a don't-care) after the event. Your interpretation seems to be the opposite. If I were to use the word 'until' in a sentence that means what is included in the parentheses, I would write 'We work until our manager says so.'

I fail to see any ambiguity in either of the above-quoted sentences. They indicate a continuity of state during the time before which an event occurred, then the even occurs, then time continues on without anything known about the state.

Nope, I just fail to understand the OP's point.

We stop working until our manager says so (work before the event, stop after the event)

So this is valid english? I had no idea, as a non-native english user, this sentence just confuse me...

Hahaha, yes it is. That's incredibly confusing isn't it?
Just try and read many of the books regarding linguistics and English, you will be surprised how inconsistent English really is (not that other languages aren't as well.)