From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:58:48 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <8738j32vaf.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <83sir7yue7.fsf@gnu.org> <8761o3dlak.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83bnxuzyl4.fsf@gnu.org> <871tyqes5q.fsf@wanadoo.es> <834n3lzux6.fsf@gnu.org> <87ppm9d3y4.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83ob1ty4qr.fsf@gnu.org> <87ha7lcxki.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83ios0xwcv.fsf@gnu.org> <87bnxscr0x.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83eh2oxpnw.fsf@gnu.org> <877g8gcl52.fsf@wanadoo.es> <871tyn4n1l.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <531054E2.6040200@dancol.org> <87k3cf3601.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <8738j3cxpd.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87bnxr32zw.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87txbjbfjn.fsf@wanadoo.es> <877g8f2y69.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87ppm7bcso.fsf@wanadoo.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1393595954 23889 80.91.229.3 (28 Feb 2014 13:59:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:59:14 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 28 14:59:22 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WJNyD-0005el-7R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:59:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51215 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJNyC-0004VC-R8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:59:20 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48058) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJNy4-0004V3-JI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:59:17 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJNxz-0001PU-Hj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:59:12 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:49167) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJNxz-0001PI-Be for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:59:07 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WJNxv-0004MO-RM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:59:03 +0100 Original-Received: from x2f43b62.dyn.telefonica.de ([2.244.59.98]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:59:03 +0100 Original-Received: from dak by x2f43b62.dyn.telefonica.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:59:03 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 69 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: x2f43b62.dyn.telefonica.de X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:BmR5QxnzkLlkr8D/Y1oj18rubmg= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:169942 Archived-At: Óscar Fuentes writes: > David Kastrup writes: > >>> Eli took no offense from my response. That should be a strong hint for >>> you. >> >> Eli did not reply after you unilaterally declared the discussion >> closed. > > Yes, he did. Look harder. > >> Declaring this to mean that he took no offense is quite a leap. >> >> You did not bother explaining > > I already took the time to answer your unsolicited intervention in Eli's > defense, but it seems you will not be happy until I acknowledge that > your over-the-top intervention was justified. > > No. You make it a habit of inventing your own histories. I did not intervene at all in Eli's defense. Again quoting _in_ _full_ what you are alluding to: Daniel Colascione writes: > On 02/28/2014 01:13 AM, David Kastrup wrote: >> When one declaration changes the meaning and syntax of a program all >> over one file (and yes, this sort of thing _can_ happen with C++), >> getting things right might require a full-file parse. When presented >> with a preexisting C++ file, being able to get the actual meaning out >> by the use of exhaustive tools is nice. When _writing_ a C++ >> program, it's preferable to stay away from those edges and thus get >> along with more simplistic tools. Or even none at all. > > You might believe that --- and you may even be right --- but your > personal prescriptions for software development shouldn't affect the > feature-set of a generic editor. Ultimately, reality will affect the feature set of a generic editor. Any feature that requires per-keystroke reparsing of the entire compilation unit to work is not feasible in an editing workflow. That kind of thing is ok for code browsing, not for writing. At any rate, it was Óscar's claim that it is so utterly absurd to state being a regular C++ programmer when one does not rely on code-explaining support tools that he basically called Eli a fraud. That's a bit stronger than "personal prescriptions for software development". That's not an "intervention in Eli's defense". It's just pointing out that I happen to share some of those of Eli's stances on programming that are portrayed as being so outlandish and/or not worth of consideration as to render any further discussion moot. At any rate, if you want to comment on any part of the discussion, I _strongly_ suggest that you _quote_ what you are talking about instead of postulating your interpretation. Since we already established that we have a wide variety of how readers of this list interpret any given choice of words, quoting what you refer to avoids the interpretations taking on a life of their own like when playing "Broken Telephone". -- David Kastrup