On 1/24/13 2:03 PM, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 01/24/13 19:05, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/24/13 9:47 AM, Artur Skawina wrote:
Having ()-less function calls is just insane; if it isn't obvious to you why,
you just haven't read enough code that (ab)uses them.
You see, this is the kind of argument that I find very damaging to the
conversation. It lacks any shred of material evidence, evokes emotion,
manipulates the reader's opinion (framing them into incompetent/inexperienced
if they disagree), and implies an appeal to authority. Please don't do that
anymore.
You're more than welcome to produce counterevidence, or ignore the arguments,
for whatever reasons. Ad hominems won't work, not only because I don't take this
personally, but because I'm probably the person most willing/likely to discuss
any
relevant issues around here (I wish there was more like us (ie me)).
Good quality discussion is always welcome. I have specifically opposed a
specific rhetoric, not a person, so "ad hominem" is inappropriate here.
Trying to make arguments you don't like go away and silencing the messenger
is your MO.
Now that's what's called "ad hominem".
Please don't do that anymore.
I will always protest the rhetoric mentioned, sorry.
Not because I ask you to, but because it
does harm the language, and the "community". Trying to at least understand the
other point of view and reflecting a bit can be very enlightening. Who knows,
you
might even learn something new.
Sarcasm is always appreciated :o). On a serious note, it's a bit
assuming to conclude that disagreeing with something must be caused by
not understanding it. This is not rocket science. The points involved
are understood. That doesn't entail agreement.
Having said that, I'll elaborate on the sentence you quoted above. See for
example
Timon's code [1] here: http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/baa538af . Spot the recursion in
the
tree-walker.
How about this: insert the parens and then demonstrate how the bug is
easier to spot. Wasn't any easier for me.
Andrei
