Re: Issues with exported functions

[Pierre Gaston]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:04 PM, lolilolicon <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Pierre Gaston <address@hidden>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:42 PM, lolilolicon <address@hidden>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Linda Walsh <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> > lolilolicon wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't expect more than a dozen who rely on this... but bash
> >> >> programmers can be quite the perverts, so...
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Personally I find those who don't read the man page, and then claim
> that
> >> > documented
> >> > behavior is a "bug" are the real "perverts".  They expect documented
> >> > behavior to work
> >> > some way other than is documented... How is that not perverted?
> >>
> >> You're arguing "like a girl". I didn't say the documented behavior was a
> >
> >
> > uh?  really?
> > Please go away, it's already bad enough you are discussing things you
> don't
> > fully understand without being sexist on top of that.
>
> Isn't the whole point of discussing better understanding? If you have to
> fully understand a thing to be allowed to discuss it, then there will be
> no discussion allowed.
>
> You're too easily stoked. Please don't be so sensitive. Notice the double
> quotes? I'm using the stereotype as a shorthand. Stereotypes exist and
> are widely understood, much like idioms.
>
> In any event, this is but irrelevant to the discussion. Do not seize the
> red herring.
>

It is fully relevant when you use a sexist stereotype as an argument.