From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:14:04 +0100 Message-ID: <87txbjbfjn.fsf@wanadoo.es> References: <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> <87bnxr32zw.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1393589671 10976 80.91.229.3 (28 Feb 2014 12:14:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:14:31 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 28 13:14:40 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 1WJMKp-00018s-LA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:14:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50665 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJMKp-00017q-2r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 07:14:35 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56374) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJMKg-00017V-Gl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 07:14:32 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJMKa-000198-MX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 07:14:26 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:38718) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJMKa-000190-Fo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 07:14:20 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WJMKY-00083O-1g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:14:18 +0100 Original-Received: from 19.red-83-39-162.dynamicip.rima-tde.net ([83.39.162.19]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:14:18 +0100 Original-Received: from ofv by 19.red-83-39-162.dynamicip.rima-tde.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:14:18 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 36 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 19.red-83-39-162.dynamicip.rima-tde.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:oUzVCKwr3Ql46SC7JQlaTKaReQY= 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:169937 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: [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? Indeed there was no common basis for communication, but that is not the same as dismissing the interlocutor's POV as worthless. Much less to accuse him of being a fraud. I'm genuinely confused by Eli's stance. At the point you quoted I was already suspecting that the case he was talking about was not the same as mine and clarifying the issue seemed of little value because, for me, the main motivation of the discussion did not depend on our opinions about an specific case. Also, there are lots of programmers who are proficient on a very small subset of the language and claim to be C++ programmers. If I were one of those, I wouldn't make that claim, but truth is that they do useful, productive work and in that sense they are C++ programmers. So I acknowledge Eli's right to say he is a C++ programmer even *if* he is unacquainted with such basic concepts as function overloading. > 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. Eli took no offense from my response. That should be a strong hint for you.