DEFSTRUCT and lexical environment
in [Lisp]
|
From: Madhu on 14 Oct 2009 00:56 * Ron Garret Wrote on Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:33:30 -0700: | | How fortunate for you that when defending an indefensible position one | can always fall back on ad hominem attacks. Otherwise you'd have | nothing left to say. | |> I also see Daniel Weinreb as a highly vested member of the community |> (not necessarily for the good of Commom Lisp) and would advice people |> take his recommendations with a modicum of salt. | | He wasn't making a recommendation, he was stating a historical fact. | You really do seem to have a lot of trouble with basic rhetorical | concepts. My interest in this thread is primarily in response to your despicable style of dishonest rhetoric. I have not said he made a recommendation in this case, because I have not seen what he has said in this case. I said exactly what I meant, not what you twisted it to mean. This is the example of how you twist the spec so it meets your own twisted expectations -- Madhu
From: Ron Garret on 14 Oct 2009 02:33 In article <m3ljjevaj1.fsf(a)moon.robolove.meer.net>, Madhu <enometh(a)meer.net> wrote: > * Ron Garret Wrote on Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:33:30 -0700: > > | > | How fortunate for you that when defending an indefensible position one > | can always fall back on ad hominem attacks. Otherwise you'd have > | nothing left to say. > | > |> I also see Daniel Weinreb as a highly vested member of the community > |> (not necessarily for the good of Commom Lisp) and would advice people > |> take his recommendations with a modicum of salt. > | > | He wasn't making a recommendation, he was stating a historical fact. > | You really do seem to have a lot of trouble with basic rhetorical > | concepts. > > My interest in this thread is primarily in response to your despicable > style of dishonest rhetoric. > > I have not said he made a recommendation Not explicitly, no. But you wrote that you "would advice [sic] people to take [Dan Weinreb's] recommendations with a modicum of salt." Either you meant to imply that Dan had made a recommendation or this is a deliberate non-sequitur. Which is it? > in this case, because I have > not seen what he has said in this case. I said exactly what I meant, > not what you twisted it to mean. I did not twist it. I drew a reasonable inference based on what you wrote and the assumption that you would not deliberately introduce a non-sequitur in the conversation. But perhaps I was being too generous. > This is the example of how you twist the spec so it meets your own > twisted expectations No, this is yet another example of your apparent lack of understanding of English and the rules of logic and valid inference, to say nothing of being yet another ad hominem. There is ONLY ONE valid argument you can make to support your position, and that is to show that my preferred interpretation of the spec is invalid. If you can't do that (and you can't because it isn't) then the situation is in fact, as I claim, ambiguous. Everything else, including your own personal opinion and any recommendations Dan Weinreb may or may not have made, is irrelevant. (Note that my introduction of what Dan said was merely *additional evidence* in support of my position. So even if you could completely discredit Dan that would not matter in the least because my argument does not depend on Dan's views in any way.) rg
From: Tamas K Papp on 14 Oct 2009 02:56 On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:33:30 -0700, Ron Garret wrote: > to you, but CLL is not the center of the universe. It is not even the > center of the Lisp universe. A question tangential to this thread: what other centers are there? Is there any other general CL forum? I am asking because I would be interested in reading it. Thanks, Tamas
From: Madhu on 14 Oct 2009 03:23 * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-ADF90A.23332113102009(a)news.albasani.net> : Wrote on Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:33:22 -0700: |> I have not said he made a recommendation | | Not explicitly, no. But you wrote that you "would advice [sic] people | to take [Dan Weinreb's] recommendations with a modicum of salt." | Either you meant to imply that Dan had made a recommendation or this | is a deliberate non-sequitur. Which is it? I consider this is another exhibit of your dishonest style of twisting the statement. I will let my statement stand, I cannot add anything to make it clearer atop your feigned misunderstanding. |> in this case, because I have not seen what he has said in this case. |> I said exactly what I meant, not what you twisted it to mean. | | I did not twist it. I drew a reasonable inference based on what you | wrote and the assumption that you would not deliberately introduce a | non-sequitur in the conversation. But perhaps I was being too | generous. These are any number of unreasonable inferences you can draw and pass off as reasonable. This is the point I wish to highlight. |> This is the example of how you twist the spec so it meets your own |> twisted expectations | | No, this is yet another example of your apparent lack of understanding | of English and the rules of logic and valid inference, to say nothing | of being yet another ad hominem. This is another example of your style. There are any number of ways in which to misunderstand a misunderstandable statement, given your skill and [unstated] command of English, you believe you can exploit this and misinterpret and mislead the audience by passing off your [mis]interpretation as "reasonable." My claim is it is "reasonable" only as long as you are uneducated about the resolution of the potential conflict. Even if the ambiguity has been resolved you could prefer to continually ignore the fact, because you can continuallly state your [erraneous] point of view as if the clarification never happened. [perhaps because it hasn't happened to those who come across it for the first time] [First Order] Logic and valid inference are tools which are not powerful enough to expose such charlatanism. It is necessary to step outside the formal framework to see what you are doing here. | THERE is ONLY ONE valid argument you can make to support your | position, and that is to show that my preferred interpretation of the | spec is invalid. If you can't do that (and you can't because it | isn't) then the situation is in fact, as I claim, I believe your [mis]interpretation comes from misplaced expectations from a different language, not one described by the Common Lisp Specification. | your own personal opinion and any recommendations Dan Weinreb may or | may not have made, is irrelevant. (Note that my introduction of what | Dan said was merely *additional evidence* in support of my position. | So even if you could completely discredit Dan that would not matter in | the least because my argument does not depend on Dan's views in any | way.) Your argument is based your personal expectations, and any "additional evidence" which you _allege_ Weinreb has supplied can at best be his personal opinion. The Specification itself has seen common lisp implementations which have apparently confounded your expectation. I can say they have not confounded mine, and the behaviour in fact conforms with what I have come to expect, given the spirit expressed in other parts of the language [which I do not assume you have any familiarity or sympathy with] -- Madhu
From: Kenneth Tilton on 14 Oct 2009 04:12
Madhu wrote: > [First Order] Logic and valid inference are tools which are not powerful > enough to expose such charlatanism. It is necessary to step outside the > formal framework to see what you are doing here. We'll know you see what he is doing when you step outside the thread. kt |