To Victor: You still haven't replied to the posting below. Am I to take this to mean that you have no answer, i.e. you were wrong but won't admit it? Or do you tend to offend people for no reason, and not care about it?
If I don't hear anything from you, I'll assume both, because I have no reason to believe anything else. When you come with a claim like this, you should at least have the decency to explain what you mean, so I can reply to it. Posting vague accusations is simply bad manners. (Note: I've asked him about a reply to the posting below, off-list, but got no reply. I've also seen him post, after I sent the posting below. I would have preferred to settle this off-list) Regards, Terje >From: "Terje Slettebų" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Do you still think I've got it backwards? > >From: "Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > in a word, yes. > > In what way? > > > Regards, > > Terje > > > > At Saturday 5/3/2003 12:42 PM, you wrote: > > > >From: "Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > "It's not possible" --- JML > > > > "Yes it is....show me an example" --- TS > > > > > > > > Ummmm, I think you got it backwards Terje > > > > > >No, I haven't, but I think you've misunderstood. > > > > > >I meant, show me an example of a function where you think it's impossible > to > > >just use name, to convey the meaning. > > > > > >His statement was: "And as I've already point out, it's not possible to > make > > >a function's intent clear with a name." > > > > > >Do you still think I've got it backwards? > > > > > >It's an attempt of getting the discussion more concrete, with actual > code. > > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost > _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
