stdio line-streaming revisited

[Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email)]

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. 
> 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.

The only civilized response I can imagine to this is killfiling sender's 
address. It's understandable for anyone to get heated and make a few ad 
hominem arguments in the midst of a heated argument. But to actually sit 
down and build an entire web of assumptions leading to sweeping 
personality judgments, that's just shady. Put yourself for a minute at 
the receiving end of such calumny and you'll understand why you ought to 
be ashamed of yourself.


Andrei