Multiple Statements per Line
in [ASM]
|
From: o///annnabee on 9 Apr 2006 14:37 P? Sun, 09 Apr 2006 19:06:59 +0200, skrev Dragontamer <prtiglao(a)gmail.com>: > if you work in a team, for example the GNU > project... > > You have to write in a way consistent to the rest of your team members, > so that > not only YOU find it readable, but that everyone else on your team > finds it readable. If its usable to me, in a real project, over some time, its by definition a good style. > Nonetheless, Wannabie's logic holds for programs written by one > developer. No. then it would not be logic. Logic is universal. > Which > is one reason why I argue that language doesn't matter except in terms > of popularity. I dont care what you argue or not. When it comes to you and me, I am allways right and you are allways wrong. Unless I say you are right. > --Dragontamer
From: hutch-- on 9 Apr 2006 21:24 smile, > :)) I can only trust your expertise here Hutch. I don't need to have any expertise in chewin hats as I have never promised to eat one as you did and the only way you are going to do that is to start chewin. Regards, hutch at movsd dot com
From: Dragontamer on 9 Apr 2006 22:11 o///annnabee wrote: > På Sun, 09 Apr 2006 19:06:59 +0200, skrev Dragontamer <prtiglao(a)gmail.com>: > > > if you work in a team, for example the GNU > > project... > > > > You have to write in a way consistent to the rest of your team members, > > so that > > not only YOU find it readable, but that everyone else on your team > > finds it readable. > > If its usable to me, in a real project, over some time, its by definition > a good style. If it is usable to you, but useless to the 99 other members on your team, then it is a bad style. > > Nonetheless, Wannabie's logic holds for programs written by one > > developer. > > No. then it would not be logic. Logic is universal. "Logic" is a system of arguments, and all arguments are based on assumptions. Your logic holds, but not for these different assumptions :-) > > Which > > is one reason why I argue that language doesn't matter except in terms > > of popularity. > > I dont care what you argue or not. When it comes to you and me, I am > allways right and you are allways wrong. Unless I say you are right. Wannabie, you got this all backwards. I was the one who is always correct. Although... There was this one time I thought I was wrong... but I was mistaken. :-p --Dragontamer
From: o///annnabee on 10 Apr 2006 04:47 P? Mon, 10 Apr 2006 03:24:58 +0200, skrev hutch-- <hutch(a)movsd.com>: > smile, > >> :)) I can only trust your expertise here Hutch. > > I don't need to have any expertise in chewin hats as I have never > promised to eat one as you did and the only way you are going to do > that is to start chewin. Dont you mean : "I dont need to have any expertise in hat eating, as I have found a way to pretend I know anything about it, even though I actually have never had any competance in hat eating. My comptance field is rather in POWER hat eating" :)) :)) > > Regards, > > hutch at movsd dot com >
From: o///annnabee on 10 Apr 2006 05:17
P? Mon, 10 Apr 2006 04:11:36 +0200, skrev Dragontamer <prtiglao(a)gmail.com>: > If it is usable to you, but useless to the 99 other members on your > team, then > it is a bad style. No. Assuming two pair of eyes and a working brain, and roughly same perception, what will work for me will work for them. Just like we are all able to read the same book. Or understand the same movie, or the same music. Then if its a good style for me, it will be good enough for them as well. With a good style I mean a style that your are able to bring into some decent sized project, and are able to read and recap code in a few minutes, several month after you wrote it. >> > Nonetheless, Wannabie's logic holds for programs written by one >> > developer. >> >> No. then it would not be logic. Logic is universal. > > "Logic" is a system of arguments, and all arguments are based on > assumptions. Well, those assumtions arent really assumptions, but, in norwegian we call it an AXIOM. Given the same axiom, (referanse system), the logic yields the same answer each time. This is the basic of matematics. It is why we can launch sondes with information about humans, able to be comprehended by some beeing with a totally diffrent referanse system, some place far away in time and space. As long as they are able to logic reason, they will be able to decode the message. > Your logic holds, but not for these different assumptions :-) Yes, my logic here is very clear. Now, you may say that some guy could claim he hate cheese, and never eat it. But then he is illogical. Assuming he needs food, he will eat, when the need to do it is present. The logic is clear. He has a need for food, and cheese will nurish him, and it follows that when he have nothing else to choose from he will eat the cheese. So, when he says he never eats it, he is basically creating an illusion for himself. A lie, simply. And so it is for this matter. You can understand and read something if I can understand and read something. And if I can do so efficiently, you can do so efficiently. What is illogical is that you would need to create yourself the illusion that you cannot. >> I dont care what you argue or not. When it comes to you and me, I am >> allways right and you are allways wrong. Unless I say you are right. > > Wannabie, you got this all backwards. Its Wannabee. > I was the one who is always correct. > > Although... There was this one time I thought I was wrong... > but I was mistaken. Yes. roughly so. :)) > > :-p > > --Dragontamer > |