Dave's difficulties with manual activities
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: Symbol reader macros
Next: Read CSV in SBCL
From: Turgut Durduran on 13 Sep 2009 07:07 On 2009-09-13, Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: > Turgut Durduran wrote: >> On 2009-09-11, Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >>> Turgut Durduran wrote: >>>> On 2009-09-10, Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >>>>>> What you say is, in its own terms, true, but we don't accept these terms. >>>>> Tough. Objective ones are the only terms I'm offering. >>>> "objective"? I never seen you give the list of standards or a methodology >>>> to judge them. >>> Then perhaps you ought to reread the thread. >> >> [says I'm a liar] > > I will take that as your conceding that you still don't have a logical > argument against what I've said. Yes yes, we know that you can type that sentence. Yet you have not given the list of standards or a methodology to judge them. That is not objective. >>> As for dejure, there's >>> a written CUA standards document out there somewhere. >> >> I am sure there is. > > So, you have accepted the truth. The truth that CUA standards exist somewhere? sure, I know they do, I have read it. The point is that you have not provided it. ugdc
From: Tim Bradshaw on 13 Sep 2009 10:11 On 2009-09-13 11:41:40 +0100, Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> said: > We are discussing a text editor. It only needs to be good at one thing: > editing text. We're not. We're discussing Emacs. I read mail and news in Emacs for something like 15 years. Many people in these groups probably still do. ed is a text editor, Emacs is something else altogether. It happens to work differently than you'd like, clearly, but I think it's more interesting why you feel so compelled to waste what must be a lot of time by now complaining so vociferously about it: couldn't you just not use it if you don't like it? It's not going to hide under your bed and attack you in the night or anything.
From: Jason Rumney on 13 Sep 2009 10:33 On Sep 13, 6:58 pm, Turgut Durduran <u...(a)ugdc.org> wrote: > On 2009-09-13, Dave Searles <sear...(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: > > > The beauty of it is I can do this without leaving a very small, > > orthogonal set of commands > > What does "orthogonal set of commands" even mean? Commands that don't do exactly what you want, but if you think about it for long enough, you might be able to come up with a combination of those commands that almost get you to where you want to be. A bit of a foreign concept to users of Emacs, where anything is possible.
From: ACL on 13 Sep 2009 10:38 On Sep 13, 10:11 am, Tim Bradshaw <t...(a)cley.com> wrote: > On 2009-09-13 11:41:40 +0100, Dave Searles <sear...(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> said: > > > We are discussing a text editor. It only needs to be good at one thing: > > editing text. > > We're not. We're discussing Emacs. I read mail and news in Emacs for > something like 15 years. Many people in these groups probably still > do. ed is a text editor, Emacs is something else altogether. It > happens to work differently than you'd like, clearly, but I think it's > more interesting why you feel so compelled to waste what must be a lot > of time by now complaining so vociferously about it: couldn't you just > not use it if you don't like it? It's not going to hide under your bed > and attack you in the night or anything. I hate to sound negative about this, (but I'm just gonna throw this out there...) 'Dave Searles' may be a troll. (I don't want to cast accusations around blindly, but it kind of seems like it). Vigorously arguing about something that doesn't matter in the slightest is a pretty clear indication. Trolls don't normally admit to being trolls (sometimes they don't know it themselves). I think we've seen him in a few guises already, Seamus McRae, that other guy who was also Seamus except slightly different. if I had to guess, I'd say this is a lunatic who makes up roughly 1/3 of the net posts to usenet which are not computer generated Spam! (bored human generated spam)
From: Alan Mackenzie on 13 Sep 2009 13:00
In comp.emacs Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> In comp.emacs Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >>> Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> but the fact it[Emacs]'s got a substantial enthusiastic following is >>>> good evidence for its intrinsic goodness. >>> Don't be ridiculous. Radium watches had a substantial enthusiastic >>> following in the 50s. So did thalidomide. In the 30s it was Nazism. >> What's this? Are you trying to demonstrate Godwin's law? > No, I am trying to rebut the ludicrous claim that something having an > enthusiastic following is evidence that it is intrinsically good. It's not ludicrous. By itself, an enthusiastic following is not conclusive evidence of goodness, but it's certainly significant. >> Look, Dave, I do hope you manage to find a job soon. I really do. > I believe I mentioned in another post that I have a job. Perhaps you > did not read that one. Apologies. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). |