[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:12:19 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)

Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup <address@hidden> 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

    Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> 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


    >> 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.


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

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]