From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Maxime Devos Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: RE: [PATCH] test-suite: Add tests for `for-rdelim-in-port`-related functions. Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 13:53:06 +0100 Message-ID: <20241220135310.r0t92D0082kJuzj010t981@laurent.telenet-ops.be> References: <43ad0b39-03cf-b648-3bc9-8c4a064519a8@disroot.org> <8e113f49-c1dc-313b-e65a-24a73c5b887a@disroot.org> <20241220101533.qxFY2D00e2kJuzj01xFZgG@baptiste.telenet-ops.be> <20241220125141.qzrg2D00G2kJuzj06zrg2X@albert.telenet-ops.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_480566DB-FE53-47AE-8F4A-221CDB88C9FD_" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="3107"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: "mikael@djurfeldt.com" , Adam Faiz , guile-devel , Ricardo Wurmus , Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz> To: Nala Ginrut Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 20 13:53:49 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1tOcVo-0000gJ-Ta for guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 13:53:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tOcVM-0001Bf-1T; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 07:53:20 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tOcVJ-0001BN-8W for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 07:53:17 -0500 Original-Received: from laurent.telenet-ops.be ([2a02:1800:110:4::f00:19]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tOcVG-0006Oe-K1 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 07:53:17 -0500 Original-Received: from [IPv6:2a02:1811:8c0e:ef00:f87b:b2ea:4352:aa46] ([IPv6:2a02:1811:8c0e:ef00:f87b:b2ea:4352:aa46]) by laurent.telenet-ops.be with cmsmtp id r0t92D0082kJuzj010t981; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 13:53:10 +0100 Importance: normal X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telenet.be; s=r24; t=1734699190; bh=gESRP0ItSPsjf57Ra/ylmnsk/ik9NjSRUG3wO2fqg+w=; h=Message-ID:MIME-Version:To:Cc:From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To: References:Content-Type:From; b=RoFkEiuICTU/T1CYeFmAMwXOruJ+/X6oEdZuS03S5D+7AOIVVfZqvyOupWFXrbre0 lrDgKIubDPiFG1I+RcgWbQmb4nMnh0i9tRO+mxKsrJ8BYGZQpd7WjxTPHbc0SRl6OR SGfk8W42F9snvlXkircFqlsJxsiaaNAUZ2tk9/3ml7aI3qMsuD5fckPCKCjFJcF0If PK+iDz+GOXZD4Bn+WUl6Z8VkSOzIgsv2REDiQAFu/f8pI72EoFO0m/FtCf+fTvqWzC aumNRei6pNF9JsLE4HO2gfuV0PwfopSvHtZOxLr3P8MUoe/FIVGP+X1XMbFmQKmDFY oxSpyl4GwnI9Q== Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a02:1800:110:4::f00:19; envelope-from=maximedevos@telenet.be; helo=laurent.telenet-ops.be X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.lisp.guile.devel:22844 Archived-At: --_480566DB-FE53-47AE-8F4A-221CDB88C9FD_ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >I have no any interest to persuade you, just show my opinion and suggestio= ns.=20 >And I also have no interest to argue with you about the design, because th= e efforts has made according to you suggestions.=20 This is a problem. Just making a proposal without following up on discussio= ns of its merits / demerits is ok, as long as you don=E2=80=99t push the pr= oposal afterwards. Likewise, mentioning a (claimed) demerits of a counter-p= roposal is fine even if you don=E2=80=99t follow-up on counter-arguments. But you did continue pushing the proposal =E2=80=93 and not just by making = some parts of it more clear, but in the form =E2=80=9Cactually I do intend = to persuade, but I don=E2=80=99t want to think about actual arguments, so I= =E2=80=99ll just repeat my claims without addressing the (counter)arguments= =E2=80=9D. Tacking on =E2=80=9Cjust my opinion=E2=80=9D doesn=E2=80=99t mak= e it so, it just makes it look like an attempt for plausible deniability. Whether you intended to or not, you did present an ad nauseum (+ implausibl= e deniability) argument, so it is an ad nauseum argument. >I'm trying to follow the idea to not waste any efforts have been made. (Here you are making an (implicit) strawman again.) Then you are failing. I= n my proposal there is nothing about wasting effort, and your nauseum argum= entation is quite a waste. >My suggestion is to find something function to test under different platfo= rms. And if you think (uname) is not a good way, you should give a better s= olution. I already did. Also, no. Just because you know something is bad, doesn=E2= =80=99t mean you know a better solution, so it doesn=E2=80=99t automaticall= y follow that a better solution should be given. It=E2=80=99s quite frustrating to be asked =E2=80=9CYou should tell me how = to X=E2=80=9D right after I did tell you how to X. It=E2=80=99s as-if you w= ant people to not join the ML or have people leave the ML. >If any possible, follow the path technically, not waste anyone's time, inc= lude me, to discuss things that outside of the patch itself. Going slightly beyond the scope of a patch is not necessarily a waste of ti= me, and on average can same some time (because less patches would be needed= ), as I probably mentioned earlier in some other words. Also, "anyone=E2=80=9D includes me. You should stop wasting _my_ time by re= peating your ad nauseum messages -- whether it=E2=80=99s for just repeating= your opinion, or intended for (fallacious) argumentation or persuasion, it= is quite ad nauseum. Regards, Maxime Devos --_480566DB-FE53-47AE-8F4A-221CDB88C9FD_ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"

>I have no any interest to persuade you, just show my opin= ion and suggestions.

>And I = also have no interest to argue with you about the design, because the effor= ts has made according to you suggestions.

This is a problem. Just making a proposal without following up o= n discussions of its merits / demerits is ok, as long as you don=E2=80=99t = push the proposal afterwards. Likewise, mentioning a (claimed) demerits of = a counter-proposal is fine even if you don=E2=80=99t follow-up on counter-a= rguments.

But you did continue p= ushing the proposal =E2=80=93 and not just by making some parts of it more = clear, but in the form =E2=80=9Cactually I do intend to persuade, but I don= =E2=80=99t want to think about actual arguments, so I=E2=80=99ll just repea= t my claims without addressing the (counter)arguments=E2=80=9D. Tacking on = =E2=80=9Cjust my opinion=E2=80=9D doesn=E2=80=99t make it so, it just makes= it look like an attempt for plausible deniability.

Whether you intended to or not, you did present an ad n= auseum (+ implausible deniability) argument, so it is an ad nauseum argumen= t.

>I'm trying to follow the = idea to not waste any efforts have been made.

(Here you are making an (implicit) strawman again.) Then you = are failing. In my proposal there is nothing about wasting effort, and your= nauseum argumentation is quite a waste.

>My suggestion is to find something function to test under diff= erent platforms. And if you think (uname) is not a good way, you should giv= e a better solution.

I already d= id. Also, no. Just because you know something is bad, doesn=E2=80=99t mean = you know a better solution, so it doesn=E2=80=99t automatically follow that= a better solution should be given.

It=E2=80=99s quite frustrating to be asked =E2=80=9CYou should tell me = how to X=E2=80=9D right after I did tell you how to X. It=E2=80=99s as-if y= ou want people to not join the ML or have people leave the ML.

>If any possible, follow the path technic= ally, not waste anyone's time, include me, to discuss things that outside o= f the patch itself.

Going slight= ly beyond the scope of a patch is not necessarily a waste of time, and on a= verage can same some time (because less patches would be needed), as I prob= ably mentioned earlier in some other words.

Also, "anyone=E2=80=9D includes me. You should stop wastin= g _my_ time by repeating your ad nauseum messages -- whether it=E2= =80=99s for just repeating your opinion, or intended for (fallacious) argum= entation or persuasion, it is quite ad nauseum.

Regards,
Maxime Devos

= --_480566DB-FE53-47AE-8F4A-221CDB88C9FD_--