From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jay Belanger Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: string> missing? Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 16:35:59 -0500 Message-ID: <87twuoo4ow.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87oakxkvqw.fsf@petton.fr> <83zj4grgkc.fsf@gnu.org> <87sia8n8b5.fsf@petton.fr> <87zj4gu821.fsf@gnu.org> <83sia8rdkm.fsf@gnu.org> <83pp5crbfd.fsf@gnu.org> <83mw0gr4eh.fsf@gnu.org> <83h9qor2kk.fsf@gnu.org> <873828ply5.fsf@gmail.com> Reply-To: jay.p.belanger@gmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1433367397 28696 80.91.229.3 (3 Jun 2015 21:36:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 21:36:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jay.p.belanger@gmail.com To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 03 23:36:32 2015 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 1Z0GKr-0001O3-VM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 23:36:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38349 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z0GKr-000088-GL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 17:36:29 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39156) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z0GKf-00007z-0C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 17:36:17 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z0GKZ-0008DL-BK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 17:36:16 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-oi0-x22c.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22c]:35900) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z0GKZ-0008DD-7O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 17:36:11 -0400 Original-Received: by oihb142 with SMTP id b142so17708250oih.3 for ; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 14:36:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:subject:references:reply-to:cc:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=tNR3sXPZ2vnX9E82vnnZMKv3AaZfBvxecTLHUS8s+Uk=; b=Oyjgb+Szg5NLvIQXVJG0TkT1A7ItIzd8qDIhbd2LBANjzGhcm2JCFve/stIkEczGSa qspelGn3zuWrU/QpaBdXJNxGg7DNM4u/zLb8EyYZ6cUPAt/HJXZdg8s8jC+vupH3RGoL B5IxF6ZvBy1OjV5JtH+5jGaZTVEmCtRvmYOjCrPYQgy8xPOqngI75WibMp9+SW5goo2q CFEQesC2q/EKbZ4OiuzGopz/Lnt2nLgk3vsxFAJE/6NkUNAIJLcFej1Fke/vTlmU1PQg cZJ93srEV7jgUhMfryTtd4ehw60cx6jKpm333PyD9G9LgANTPw1hhAEeVso2l9Vrkvtt cK9w== X-Received: by 10.60.174.39 with SMTP id bp7mr1474086oec.70.1433367370650; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 14:36:10 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from belanger-home (67-60-106-71.cpe.cableone.net. [67.60.106.71]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id d70sm22138oih.16.2015.06.03.14.36.09 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 03 Jun 2015 14:36:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Nick Andryshak's message of "Wed, 03 Jun 2015 16:53:03 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22c 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:187004 Archived-At: >> In what way is any one of the answers the least bit unreasonable? > > Since you asked: > >> Because they do. > > "Because they do" is a non-answer. The complete answer he gave was: "Because they do. The cause is lost in history." In other words: "We don't know", which is a perfectly good answer. >> The cause is lost in history. > > Nonsense. ?????? >> No, I don't agree. > > I really don't understand why Eli would say something like this. So disagreeing with you is unreasonable? > I think it contradicts his work. ????? >> That's exactly the point: there's no need to apply the same logic to >> both cases. > > This makes no sense: It does to me. You not understanding something isn't the same as it not making sense. Eli gave perfectly reasonable answers, you just didn't like them.