1. What has happened to comity
- Posted by Everett Williams <rett at GVTC.COM>
Feb 13, 2001
-
Last edited Feb 14, 2001
Chris, Martin, Al, Graeme, Raude, and others
What has happened to comity on this list. MTS starts to
clean up his act and then so many of you seem to see the
necessity to replace his former attitude with your own.
We may disagree, but why the necessity for ridicule and
profanity. The latest came from Al in private post. Here
is what I posted to him.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>Al,
>Your example, while well stated has in it the seed of it's own
>destruction.
>>For example:
>> "file1.ew" contains:
>> external_global_prefix="ClassA"
>> atom x,y
>> x=3 y=4
>> "file2.exw" contains:
>> include file1.ew
>> atom a,b
>> a=ClassA.x
>> b=ClassA.y
>Note that your "external_global_prefix" is within the included file
>requiring whomever wishes to change it to edit the include file. For
>future purposes, I hope there will be a day when I cannot look inside
>some include files. On principal, I should not need to look inside or
>edit someone else's include file. The "include xyz.ew as abc" eliminates
>that need and solves all the potential problems that your's creates. It
>is only an extension to the current include that does not affect current
>usage, while the "external_global_prefix" creates a new variable type.
>The "external_global_prefix" also demands that I create two completely
>separate files if I wish to include the same file twice. With the
>"include ...as..." form, I can include the same file as many times as
>>necessary without the confusion of tracking multiple copies of the same
>>include.
>An even more common problem would occur with things like Win32lib.
>I really only want one copy of that include file in my world, but I
>definitely want to have the ability to use different prefixes as I
>include it in multiple programs. With your "global_external_prefix", that
>>would not be possible. I would have to create one copy of the lib for each
>>prefix that I wished to use.
Everett L.(Rett) Williams
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
and this was his reply:
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>Then dont use it asshole.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Unsigned, and then when I replied, found his "xaxo at aol.com" blocked.
Here was and is my reply, since I cannot reach him directly.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Al,
Nothing that I said should have caused you to reply in that fashion. I
provided you with a carefully reasoned critique of your proposal without
cursing or denigrating you. Why such a response. If I am wrong, tell me
where I have erred. I intended no personal insult, and after rereading my
post to you, I can find no trace of any insult. I am very interested in the
possible namespace change and I thought that I provided you with clearly
reasoned objections to the form that you proposed. I also provided some
arguments for an alternative form that is not original to me, but that I
support. In general, I have enjoyed your posts and usually agree with you.
What am I missing here.
Everett L.(Rett) Williams
rett at gvtc.com
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
What can be gained by such savagery. Shall all that is left of
Euphoria be a group of coders that accept whatever is tossed their
way and code, code, code. Effectively, you are telling me that I
should leave all the thinking to Rob. Several have attacked others
that have proposed changes to the language, however politely. Neither
Ray Smith nor George Henry has done anything particularly provocative,
but they have received some criticism unrelated to their suggestions,
but only to the fact that they have made suggestions. And both of them
have met your criteria that they MUST contribute code. This logic seems
to be taking full root on the new list and I cannot believe that it
will benefit the language in the short or long run.
Everett L.(Rett) Williams
rett at gvtc.com
2. Re: What has happened to comity
- Posted by simulat <simulat at INTERGATE.CA>
Feb 13, 2001
-
Last edited Feb 14, 2001
Everett
I hope you will apologize for claiming that I use profanity in my posts to
you. I have not.
I don't quite understand your hostility.
I thought we had a friendly disagreement going. I point out to you that your
obsessions make unpleasant reading. I point out to you that your unpleasant
posts make people angry. You yourself provide a list of people you've
provoked. My thinking all along has been that you'd snap out of whatever
state you're in, take the hint offered in a variety of ways, and behave in a
friendly manner.
Bye
Martin
----- Original Message -----
From: Everett Williams <rett at GVTC.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:39 PM
Subject: What has happened to comity
> Chris, Martin, Al, Graeme, Raude, and others
>
> What has happened to comity on this list. MTS starts to
> clean up his act and then so many of you seem to see the
> necessity to replace his former attitude with your own.
> We may disagree, but why the necessity for ridicule and
> profanity. The latest came from Al in private post. Here
> is what I posted to him.
>
3. Re: What has happened to comity
- Posted by Derek Parnell <dparnell at BIGPOND.NET.AU>
Feb 14, 2001
-
Last edited Feb 15, 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: "Everett Williams" <rett at GVTC.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 3:39 PM
I support the syntax
include filename.e as abc
I do not support the syntax
external_global_prefix = "abc"
for the reasons that Everett clearly explained.
I also support these ideas...
a) a file can be included anywhere in the source text, not just at the file
level.
b) an included file will only be ignored if it is included again in the
same namespace and with the same "as" clause.
The use of these is to support code like this ....
function CloneCustomer( sequence custId)
include custofs.e
include custrec.e as current
include custrec.e as new
new.CustRec = EmptyCustRec
current.CustRec = fetchCustomer(custId)
if current.CustRec[Status] = kActive then
new.CustRec[Name] = current.CustRec[Name]
new.CustRec[Address] = current.CustRec[Address]
new.CustRec[PostalCode] = current.CustRec[PostalCode]
current.CustRec[WasCloned] = True
updateCustomer( custId, current.CustRec)
else
current.CustRec = fetchCustomer(kTemplateId)
new.CustRec[Name] = current.CustRec[Name]
new.CustRec[Address] = current.CustRec[Address]
new.CustRec[PostalCode] = current.CustRec[PostalCode]
end if
new.CustRec[CreateDate] = Today()
new.CustRec[CreateTime] = Now()
return new.CustRec
end function
where "custrec.e" is ...
global sequence CustRec
global sequence CustAltIndex
where "custofs.e" is ...
global constant Name = 1,
Address = 2,
PostalCode = 3,
WasCloned = 4,
Status = 5,
CreateDate = 6,
CreateTime = 7,
EmptyCustRec = {"", "", 0, 0, kNewRecord, 0, 0}
though even better would be an "export" clause rather than "global", that
only exposed the identifiers to the namespace that the include file was in.
------
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
(Vote [1] The Cheshire Cat for Internet Mascot)
4. Re: What has happened to comity
Derek,
You seem to have neatly answered not only my thoughts, but David's as
well. Let us examine a little further.
<snip>
>I also support these ideas...
> a) a file can be included anywhere in the source text, not just at the file
>level.
This is what I would call the include as copybook concept, where the
include is merely a segment of code useful to repeat in various spots.
> b) an included file will only be ignored if it is included again in the
>same namespace and with the same "as" clause.
A necessary condition to prevent recursive prefixes.
>
>The use of these is to support code like this ....
>
> function CloneCustomer( sequence custId)
> include custofs.e
> include custrec.e as current
> include custrec.e as new
>
> new.CustRec = EmptyCustRec
> current.CustRec = fetchCustomer(custId)
> if current.CustRec[Status] = kActive then
> new.CustRec[Name] = current.CustRec[Name]
> new.CustRec[Address] = current.CustRec[Address]
> new.CustRec[PostalCode] = current.CustRec[PostalCode]
>
> current.CustRec[WasCloned] = True
> updateCustomer( custId, current.CustRec)
> else
> current.CustRec = fetchCustomer(kTemplateId)
> new.CustRec[Name] = current.CustRec[Name]
> new.CustRec[Address] = current.CustRec[Address]
> new.CustRec[PostalCode] = current.CustRec[PostalCode]
> end if
>
> new.CustRec[CreateDate] = Today()
> new.CustRec[CreateTime] = Now()
>
> return new.CustRec
>
> end function
>
>where "custrec.e" is ...
> global sequence CustRec
> global sequence CustAltIndex
>
>where "custofs.e" is ...
> global constant Name = 1,
> Address = 2,
> PostalCode = 3,
> WasCloned = 4,
> Status = 5,
> CreateDate = 6,
> CreateTime = 7,
> EmptyCustRec = {"", "", 0, 0, kNewRecord, 0, 0}
Well, it appears that you have recreated structures here. I would rather
have a more formal structure definition, with named elements, but this
with prefixes certainly is better than what we have.
>though even better would be an "export" clause rather than "global", that
>only exposed the identifiers to the namespace that the include file was in.
This is where it gets tricky. With your method, global would still be
available. With Davids "octothorpe"(pound sign to us normal humans) prefix
on the include, it modifies the whole include to the local scope. Maybe
some combination of these two concepts would be the most flexible.
Everett L.(Rett) Williams
rett at gvtc.com
5. Re: What has happened to comity
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Everett Williams
> Chris, Martin, Al, Graeme, Raude, and others
>
> What has happened to comity on this list. MTS starts to
> clean up his act and then so many of you seem to see the
> necessity to replace his former attitude with your own.
> We may disagree, but why the necessity for ridicule and
> profanity. The latest came from Al in private post. Here
> is what I posted to him.
>
<SNIP>
Rett,
I have to agree with you here. As I've told you in the past, you've
frustrated me sometimes (you've never really contributed anything
constructively concrete, like actual code or a proposed implementation of
your ideas), I generally have agreed with what you've posted, though some of
the long posts reminded me of Ralf's rambling messages, and ended up in the
trash without being fully read/digested, especially when they appeared to be
a copy of a previous rant.
I've been a little surprised at the responses you've gotten both publicly,
and, apparently privately.
Matt Lewis
