stdio line-streaming revisited

[John Reimer]

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. 
After following Andrei's posts, I tend to agree with Kris' perspective.

Andrei does come across as having an agenda.  I can accept that given his
position in the influence of D; but it's becoming very hard to separate
truth from perspective in all these posts.  Why is it wrong to state that
Andrei has an agenda?  He does, doesn't he?  Are we all afraid to admit it?
I just don't think he's going about it very honestly. If he were trully
seeking to be helpful to Tango design ideas, he would be contributing over
in the Tango forums... Since he doesn't do that, it's quite easy to see
why one might think he has an agenda... and not in Tango's favour.

Andrei does tend to push his preferences on the community. That
deserves to be balanced.  Kris, Sean, and others have been doing their best
to be clear and fair in regards to addressing Tango "propaganda"; if
Andrei makes allegations about Tango, they are obligated to
either defend design decisions or accept recommendations as feasible and
beneficial.  I think they've been doing a very good job of both given the
circumstances.  Are people not noticing this? 

I don't recall ever seeing Andrei admit he is wrong without some
equivication or deflection. If he does, it's often hidden in some sorty
joke or distraction. He's just not a straight forward person, plain and
simple.  Either that or he has trouble with humility.

He's got oodles of creativity, good ideas, experience... and personal
opinions (like many here) and maybe even a little bit of academic rigour to
back him up :). He makes tons of :O) faces. But these matter little, if he
serves his own preferences, his own interests, and his own agenda.  Maybe
I got him wrong, but from what I've seen, I doubt it.

-JJR