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 12:12:19 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87bnxr32zw.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87y50z90pd.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87txbn8r6x.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <8338j717oe.fsf@gnu.org> <87zjlf6tdx.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <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> 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 1393585965 1168 80.91.229.3 (28 Feb 2014 11:12:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:12:45 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 28 12:12:53 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 1WJLN6-0001LD-4x for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:12:52 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50459 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJLN5-0003Bm-JT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 06:12:51 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44445) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJLMx-0003Ba-UG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 06:12:49 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJLMq-0004dR-Gz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 06:12:43 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:33055) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJLMq-0004d7-9l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 06:12:36 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WJLMk-0008CE-HR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:12:30 +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 12:12:30 +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 12:12:30 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 59 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:RGT/3KMqP5bO/HssQflchZptGSQ= 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:169936 Archived-At: Óscar Fuentes writes: > David Kastrup writes: > > [snip] > >> 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. > > This is beyond inflammatory. Almost libelous, I'll say. > > Please stop. > > [snip] Let's quote your statement in full (every [snip] in here was done by yourself): Eli Zaretskii writes: > What happened to the other one? It is still in the source. Smart completion is all about showing the appropriate completions for the context where the point is. Once you know the number and type of arguments, if you have zero or more than one acceptable overloads, the code is malformed. Barred that, there is one and only one correct overload, which is the one the compiler will use. A correct smart code completion system will show precisely that overload. That's what a C++ programmer expects, and then I'm perplexed when I read this: [snip] >> Eli, are you a C++ programmer? Do you code in C++ on a regular basis? > > Yes! It is obvious then that we have here a complete miscomunication, so I'll stop the discussion here. [snip] You make an ex cathedra statement "That's what a C++ programmer expects", state that you are "perplexed" when somebody who disagrees purports to be a C++ programmer and take it as a reason to abort the discussion because there is no common basis for communication. Correct, or not? Yes, that's inflammatory and almost libelous. Because it is a summary of something that can hardly be read in any way that is _not_ inflammatory and almost libelous. Feel free to point out any other valid reading of it, even though it could lead to a continuation of a discussion you want to stop. -- David Kastrup