Re: lcc first experience

On 9 May, 03:31, munt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> On May 8, 9:07 pm, rober...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Walter Roberson)
> wrote:
> > In article
<c8a99015-ca87-45b5-bd19-a9859ac8b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > =A0<munt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >On May 8, 3:11 pm, rober...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Walter Roberson)
> > >wrote:
> > >> In article
<c3cb0c48-bc72-4b53-af6b-c9b3223c5...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > >> =A0<munt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> > >> >"Communicate" thing ends after first three lines of the "2+2=3D4"
> > >> >essay.

you don't even manage to communicate for one line.


> > >> >The rest ten pages of stuff full of quotes from the C
> > >> >standard

you find quoting from the standard objectionable?!


> > >> > and anecdotes about I-wont-tell-name

what are you on about?



> > >> > are what I call
> > >> >bull****, and what Jacob calls "playing with words".

and I'd call "being clear"


> > >> Are we reading the same postings?? The closest thing I can find
> > >> to an anecdote in the message that Jacob was replying to was when
> > >> I wrote,
>
> > >"One of the semi-regular posters here takes pains to make a
> > >distinction, of great im****tance to him..."
>
> > Check the ordering on the messages. My note about person who
> > distinguishes between functions and procedures was in reply to
> > Jacob's
> > reply to my message. So what Jacob was replying to contained no
> > anecdotes.
>
> Oh, I am so sorry for getting that wrong. Must have confused
> two posts. You can't blame for that though, just look at
> the their size!

fine you don't like long posts. Some people try to be clear
and a one-liner isn't always good enough.


> > >>> anecdotes about I-wont-tell-name
>
> > "I-wont-tell-name" ?? I never took particular note of the name of
> > that particular person. There are a number of people I remember
clearly
> > enough to be fairly sure it was -not- them, but I don't
cross-reference
> > everyone's peculiarities (and I doubt anyone considers me im****tant
> > enough to bother to cross-reference -my- pecularities.)
>
> > The paragraph about the poster who makes the distinction noted, was
> > in illustration of the fact that there are posters here who employ
> > (and expect others to understand and employ) words in senses
> > other than the senses of those words that are defined by the C
> > standard.
> > The paragraph was written to show how it was indeed reasonable
> > for me -not- to know what Paul meant. Even now, after Paul has
> > indicated that he "made a boo-boo", I find that I have no idea
> > what notion he was trying to convey in that particular phrase.
>
> I believe he clearly demonstrated that he didn't even notice
> his mistake - he didn't mean side effect, he meant "value"
> or something like that. I might be wrong here, he might be
> actually using "side effect" in some funny sense. If you care,
> you could ask him. But we don't care, right? We have the standard
> to quote, who cares what he meant!

so do you know waht he meant?


> > It wasn't a case of "I'm going to pretend I don't understand because
> > that's not what the standard says": it was a case of "I can't think
> > of -any- reasonable interpretation of that phrase that could be
> > considered correct."
>
> So you could state the obvious: he was obviously wrong. You
> chose to demonstrate your writing skills instead (one would
> think that even stating that is silly, since it's obvious,
> but we have innocent newbies who need to be defended, so
> "correcting a mistake" was of course needed).
>
> > -You- might have thought that I was
> > "playing with words" or "bull-****ing", but I know that -I- was
> > thinking of neither of those things at the time I was writing those
> > postings.
>
> Blah blah blah. You took one single thing, you ignored the
> actual point (about if(0 !=3D (foo =3D blah))). You didn't try
> to *understand*. No idea what you were thinking, but it was
> that - BS.

what was the actual point? If you think trying to
clarify things by quoting the C standard is BS
then I'm in favour of BS.


--
Nick Keighley