On 01/24/13 21:13, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 1/24/13 2:03 PM, Artur Skawina wrote: >> 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".
No, it's not - it's just stating the facts; this was not the first such incident. >> 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. Bug? In Timon's code? Impossible. :) No, this is just about syntax. Some functions are not suitable for calling w/o '()', and the choice needs to stay with the callee. But the distinction is "sane/insane" for a reason - there's judgment, taste and common sense involved. Trusting every programmer to get it right won't work, unfortunately. artur
