stdio line-streaming revisited

[James Dennett]

John Reimer wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:59:49 -0700, James Dennett wrote:
> 
>> kris wrote:
>>> Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
>>>> kris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Frits van Bommel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, call-chaining can only evaluate left-to-right, but the
>>>>>> parameters *passed* to the calls can be evaluated in any order.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not at stake here, as far as I'm aware?
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is that it was brought up by yourself in an attempt
>>>> to explain that Cout("Hello, ")(Cin.get) will work properly. There was
>>>> an old thread mentioned, which deals with another problem entirely. So
>>>> that doesn't apply. Now I understand that argument has been dropped
>>>> entirely, and that now there is an argument that Cout("Hello,
>>>> ")(Cin.get) works due to some other unmentioned reasons.
>>> Then I politely suggest you are either badly confused, being entirely
>>> disengeneous, or are drunk ;-)
>>>
>>> There never was any argument of which you claim. I simply noted that
>>> eval-order had been clarified before, using your usage of "eval-order"
>>> from within the same post. If you revisit, you'll see that was actually
>>>  referring to call-chaining instead, so there's perhaps a misuse of terms:
>>>
>>>    Cout.opCall("Hello, ").opCall(Cin.get);
>>>
>>> As you can see, there is only one parameter passed to each call, and
>>> therefore the order of /parameter/ eval is "not at stake here" (as I
>>> noted to Frits). 
>> There are two arguments to the second opCall.  One is
>> the result of Cout.opCall("Hello, ") and the other is
>> the result of Cin.get, and they can be evaluated in
>> either order unless some rule prohibits it.
>>
>> Please, just address the technical content rather than
>> flaming.
>>
>> -- James
> 
> 
> I disagree with your strange assertion that Kris is flaming. 

I don't want to use a lot of bandwidth to discuss this,
but I'll show briefly that my assertion is nothing but
a straightforward one based on what was written.

Kris wrote in his response to Andrei:

> I politely suggest you are either badly confused, being
> entirely disengeneous, or are drunk ;-)

and

> you don't appear to be the slightest bit interested in
> trying to understand much

and

> your demeanour has been and continues to be that of
> someone with a hidden adgenda or with a axe to grind

and

> If you'll drop that attitute forthwith, I'll be happy
> to continue

Emotions don't cancel out comments, particularly not when
made in a post that explicitly accuses someone of acting
in a deceptive or self-serving manner and of having an
unacceptable attitude.

In the moderated newsgroups I read, such content would
be blocked during moderation, and the groups do much
better at avoiding non-technical fights because of it.

Now, please just accept that I consider such attacks on
a person to be inappropriate, that they meet definitions
of "flaming" that are in common use in my experience,
and that the quotations above show to my satisfaction
that the post from Kris fell into this classification.

I recognize Kris as a valued contributor to this
community, and hope that these notes can be taken in
a constructive spirit.  I'm just an interested party
here, not trying to lay down the law -- but I've seen
a fair number of newsgroup discussions and have some
claim to an understanding of some of the problems
that can arise and how to avoid them.

-- James