From: Peter Duniho on
Lew wrote:
> [...]
> On the other hand, you are an experienced and skilled Java programmer.
> Others might've been fooled by the seeming ambiguity of Daniel's
> statement. Not, of course, you.

The point of my (admittedly unsolicited) advice is that your reply did
nothing to remove the ambiguity, whatever ambiguity might have been
present. You made no reference at all in your reply to the presumed
ambiguity.

> The seed I dropped grew into a mighty tree of explanation thanks to your
> and Daniel's eagerness to do battle, resulting in continuing paroxysms
> of explanation.

I question your characterization of the exchange as "battle". Perhaps
your perception informed the approach you chose to take, as well as your
reaction to the comments about that approach.

Pete
From: Lew on
Peter Duniho wrote:
> The point of my (admittedly unsolicited) advice is that your reply did
> nothing to remove the ambiguity, whatever ambiguity might have been
> present. You made no reference at all in your reply to the presumed
> ambiguity.

Sure, if you look at just the one reply out of context, but I was working with
the thread as a whole, and I'm pretty sure we got the thing clear over the
course of that.

....
> I question your characterization of the exchange as "battle". Perhaps

It was Daniel who called it a "fight". I certainly didn't intend it as one,
but as an exchange.

> your perception informed the approach you chose to take, as well as your
> reaction to the comments about that approach.

Chill, man.

--
Lew