simulating local lexical variables with symbol macros
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: Mistake in the specification of rotatef ?
Next: [ann] LTK based libraries Runtime Library 3.0 and Gestalt Items 1.1
From: Ron Garret on 17 Nov 2009 22:11 In article <m3einwfs0i.fsf(a)moon.robolove.meer.net>, Madhu <enometh(a)meer.net> wrote: > * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-B32764.19034217112009(a)news.albasani.net> : > Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:03:42 -0800: > > |> Concretely, how do you think Vassil's method differs in technique > |> from what Rob illustrated to you many times in the earlier thread? > | > | Vassil's code worked. Rob's didn't. Rob's approach is pretty much > | what I tried that I couldn't get to work, and I posted a detailed > | description of the problems that I encountered. I would look it up, > | but you have given me no reason to believe that it would not be wasted > | effort, and you should do your own homework anyway. > > I'm not talking of code, I'm talking of the technique. I was curious if > you had followed the approach Rob outlined at all. And No, I have done > that piece of homework. Why am I not surprised? rg
From: Madhu on 17 Nov 2009 22:13 * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-F4D1E9.19113617112009(a)news.albasani.net> : Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:11:36 -0800: | Why am I not surprised? Because you had no point to make when following up to Bradshaw? -- Madhu
From: mdj on 17 Nov 2009 22:34 On Nov 17, 11:43 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: <snip> > | And I call bullshit. Your entire statement is based upon definitions > | of words that only apparently you posess. > > You took exception because you were not familiar with the usage. I am > not here to educate you about the usage, why dont you just excuse > yourself from the target audience? The time has come to revisit your 'point', and to return to my original purpose which was to question your intent. Are you ready? Your 'point' was that the results in question are 'uninteresting', and that Ron's (and others) claim that they are is 'misleading'. My objection, since you're either too stupid or dishonest to recognise it is your completely inappropriate and incorrect suggestion that other peoples perspectives are 'misleading'. When mocked for your vapid use of language, you 'justify' your position by pointing out (correctly) that CL is Turing complete and can be used to construct other turing complete languages of lesser expressive power. Well congratulations Einstein, that'll get you a C in CS101 Of course, any Turing complete language can be used to construct another of lesser or greater expressive power (You can, in fact, write a Lisp interpreter in BASIC, complete with a 'compiler' that emits BASIC statements). The point is, you've declared somebody elses work to be uninteresting, in order to portray another person as misleading, and your entire justification is a vacuous statement that could've been uttered by any first year CS undergraduate. Frankly, I don't particularly care about your personal vendetta against Ron, but I think your behaviour in this instance is deplorable, since you've used other peoples interesting and creative work as a means to further it. You're a disgrace. > | Far more parsimonious to say you're simply full of it, but I was > | trying to be nice. > | > |> | Actually my intent was to show how you misused it to make your point. > |> | I believe I've made that point, but if you disagree post again! I've > |> | got a few rounds left in me yet. > |> > |> Yes, Most of what have been doing is nothing but bicker about your > |> subjective definitions as per the agenda you set out, because you can > |> construct flawless arguments based on your subjective definitions. > |> Please to be continuing. > | > | And in response you don't construct an argument. You just fling about > | words like 'troll', 'jerk' and 'bickerer', and try to avoid actually > | confronting the actual point I'm making. > > No I wont construct an argument because I am not interested in the > pathological bickering behaviour you wish to indulge in were I to > construct an argument --- note I have not responded to the arguments you > gave. Maybe you should concede that I appreciate that words have > subjective usages in specific contexts. You're avoiding constructing the argument because it would reveal your true intentions. You were prepared to go far enough to do this to not only call me stupid, but attempt to hide *again*, this time behind poorly constructed philosophical claptrap which *again* only barely qualifies as philosophy 101. Plato's Cave indeed. You're a petty, vindictive, arrogant little fool. > When something is not clear, or misleading it is best to clarify the > intent of the speaker. I've made my intent clear. What is your problem > after that? See above. > Your problem is I'm not falling for your trolling and indulging you in > the pathological bickering you solicit in every post. > > | You're a charlatan. A fraud. A liar. > | > | Hey look! Three of a kind :-) > > Spare the insults. I've been quite sparing with the insults all things considered. Since the best you seem to be able to come with is 'Jerk' might I suggest to you that this is a predictable preoccupation for someone of your limited education and intellect and that you go and 'jerk' it someplace else. Matt
From: Madhu on 17 Nov 2009 22:57 Why dont you post a few articles on lisp or something and maybe come back to this thread later? All you are doing is continuing to ``return each remark with a machine gun burst of no less than than than four preposterous remarks each just screaming for rebuttal'' (in Ken Tilton's words observed of Garret's tactics in <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/f965378a4e2d4abe> ) * mdj <44ad9a9a-9c1a-4775-8d7d-139904056adb(a)a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com> : Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:34:26 -0800 (PST): | On Nov 17, 11:43 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: | | <snip> | |> | And I call bullshit. Your entire statement is based upon definitions |> | of words that only apparently you posess. |> |> You took exception because you were not familiar with the usage. I am |> not here to educate you about the usage, why dont you just excuse |> yourself from the target audience? | | The time has come to revisit your 'point', and to return to my | original purpose which was to question your intent. Are you ready? | | Your 'point' was that the results in question are 'uninteresting', and | that Ron's (and others) claim that they are is 'misleading'. Wrong. I was making a point which was the exact opposite of a claim made by Ron. You cannot understand my point without understanding Ron's claim. Instead you misunderstood the way I used the word `interesting'. I clarified it in my reply to Thingstad which you accepted. | My objection, since you're either too stupid or dishonest to recognise | it is your completely inappropriate and incorrect suggestion that | other peoples perspectives are 'misleading'. Your objection is based on a misunderstanding which you refuse to correct. This is not surprising since your intent is not to come to an understanding of my point or intent but to troll and exhibit pathological bickering behaviour on your subjective understanding of the subjective meanings of words. | When mocked for your vapid use of language, you 'justify' your | position by pointing out (correctly) that CL is Turing complete and | can be used to construct other turing complete languages of lesser | expressive power. Well congratulations Einstein, that'll get you a C | in CS101 Of course, any Turing complete language can be used to | construct another of lesser or greater expressive power (You can, in | fact, write a Lisp interpreter in BASIC, complete with a 'compiler' | that emits BASIC statements). | The point is, you've declared somebody elses work to be uninteresting, You are intent on bickering about the meaning of the word `interesting'. I'm sorry you cant see past your misunderstanding. | in order to portray another person as misleading, and your entire | justification is a vacuous statement that could've been uttered by any | first year CS undergraduate. Wrong. | Frankly, I don't particularly care about your personal vendetta | against Ron, but I think your behaviour in this instance is | deplorable, since you've used other peoples interesting and creative | work as a means to further it. | | You're a disgrace. Spare your insults for your gf |> | Far more parsimonious to say you're simply full of it, but I was |> | trying to be nice. |> | |> |> | Actually my intent was to show how you misused it to make your point. |> |> | I believe I've made that point, but if you disagree post again! I've |> |> | got a few rounds left in me yet. |> |> |> |> Yes, Most of what have been doing is nothing but bicker about your |> |> subjective definitions as per the agenda you set out, because you can |> |> construct flawless arguments based on your subjective definitions. |> |> Please to be continuing. |> | |> | And in response you don't construct an argument. You just fling about |> | words like 'troll', 'jerk' and 'bickerer', and try to avoid actually |> | confronting the actual point I'm making. |> |> No I wont construct an argument because I am not interested in the |> pathological bickering behaviour you wish to indulge in were I to |> construct an argument --- note I have not responded to the arguments you |> gave. Maybe you should concede that I appreciate that words have |> subjective usages in specific contexts. | | You're avoiding constructing the argument because it would reveal your | true intentions. You were prepared to go far enough to do this to not | only call me stupid, but attempt to hide *again*, this time behind | poorly constructed philosophical claptrap which *again* only barely | qualifies as philosophy 101. Plato's Cave indeed. No, I'm avoiding constructing arguments because if I did I would be falling for your trollbait. | You're a petty, vindictive, arrogant little fool. Surprisingly your insults accurately portray yourself in every post on comp.lang.lisp starting from the first. |> When something is not clear, or misleading it is best to clarify the |> intent of the speaker. I've made my intent clear. What is your |> problem after that? | | See above. No, you see below vvvvvvv. Your problem is I am not falling for your disputatious lines of reasoning based on subjective views. |> Your problem is I'm not falling for your trolling and indulging you in |> the pathological bickering you solicit in every post. |> |> | You're a charlatan. A fraud. A liar. |> | |> | Hey look! Three of a kind :-) |> |> Spare the insults. | | I've been quite sparing with the insults all things considered. Since | the best you seem to be able to come with is 'Jerk' might I suggest to | you that this is a predictable preoccupation for someone of your | limited education and intellect and that you go and 'jerk' it | someplace else. No it shows that I have no intention to insult you gratuitiously, your intentions are clear Why dont you go make some other posts about lisp and come back to this thread next year? I'll be waiting -- Madhu
From: Kenneth Tilton on 17 Nov 2009 23:47
mdj wrote: > On Nov 17, 11:54 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: > >> No. My point was valid. I use language to make a point. I accept I am >> sloppy and my languge is not the best, but I am making it in a context >> that does not include you among your target audience. I expect the >> audience to be familiar with the jargon. Even if I make a mistake, it >> makes no difference --- I'm using the words to communicate a point. > > Okay. Now that you concede that you're sloppy and your use of language > is poor, you can no longer argue that your usage of it accurately > conveys your point. This statement, like many of your others, is an > obvious non sequitur. Oh, my, what a disappointing rejoinder, twisting the man's words like that to suit your porpoises. Does your Mom know you post this stuff? > >> When language is subject to different interpretation or misunderstanding >> the way forward is to clarify intentions and seek clarification. Come on, let's use English, shall we? "Language, being subject to disjoint interpopulatory sets of people, hey, all hell breaks loose." hth,kt -- http://thelaughingstockatpngs.com/ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Laughingstock/115923141782?ref=nf |