What is the best way to process this list
in [Lisp]
|
From: mdj on 7 Jan 2010 07:07 On Jan 7, 9:39 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: [snip] > But still irrelevant to the `clue' you were going to give to > Matt-with-no-surname. I wonder... Why are you prepared to debate with Ron (who you claim is as dishonest as I am) but not with me? Matt-with-a-surname
From: mdj on 7 Jan 2010 07:10 On Jan 7, 5:57 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: > * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-D4C120.10381605012...(a)news.albasani.net> : > Wrote on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:38:16 -0800: > > |> Right, My point was that not only was the code you posted > |> non-conformant, but it is also not relevant to addressing the > |> assumption you wish to address. > | > | Happily, the person to whom the remark was addressed was able to see > | that it was. > > The remarkable bonding between you (the master of the socratic method) > and MATT-THE-SURNAME-LESS (the pupil) is due to the fact that both of > you suffer from acute cases of DunningKruger effect. Just when I thought you couldn't get anything else bassackwards today....
From: mdj on 7 Jan 2010 07:21 On Jan 7, 9:39 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: > 1. It is trivially determined that OPAQUE "real defstructs" are NOT > LIST-BASED. See [POINT-BAR] above where you DEFINED that they cannot > have LIST-BASED representations because they are OPAQUE. Don't be ridiculous. Implementors can choose whatever representation they see fit, as long as the opaque interface defined by the standard is adhered to. One would hope that they chose a faster one, however. Matt
From: Madhu on 7 Jan 2010 07:53 * mdj <45728ba9-b44f-438d-9a92-c1d841f810d1(a)a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> : Wrote on Thu, 7 Jan 2010 04:21:10 -0800 (PST): | On Jan 7, 9:39 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: | |> 1. It is trivially determined that OPAQUE "real defstructs" are NOT |> LIST-BASED. See [POINT-BAR] above where you DEFINED that they cannot |> have LIST-BASED representations because they are OPAQUE. | | Don't be ridiculous. Implementors can choose whatever representation | they see fit, as long as the opaque interface defined by the standard | is adhered to. One would hope that they chose a faster one, however. Except There is no "opaque interface defined by the standard." Provide the citation if youre talking of the specification, or if you just want to indulge in your clueless pathological bickering, FOAD, Matt-with-No-surname.
From: Madhu on 7 Jan 2010 07:58
* mdj <8896c874-2713-4eff-9137-69dcb871f8e5(a)j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> : Wrote on Thu, 7 Jan 2010 04:10:52 -0800 (PST): | On Jan 7, 5:57 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: |> * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-D4C120.10381605012...(a)news.albasani.net> : |> Wrote on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:38:16 -0800: |> |> |> Right, My point was that not only was the code you posted |> |> non-conformant, but it is also not relevant to addressing the |> |> assumption you wish to address. |> | |> | Happily, the person to whom the remark was addressed was able to see |> | that it was. |> |> The remarkable bonding between you (the master of the socratic method) |> and MATT-THE-SURNAME-LESS (the pupil) is due to the fact that both of |> you suffer from acute cases of Dunning–Kruger effect. | | Just when I thought you couldn't get anything else bassackwards | today.... Are you implying I have said anything incorrect? -- Madhu |