On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Dave Korn <dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/04/2012 22:36, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Dave Korn wrote: >>> On 12/04/2012 16:47, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >>> >>>> I keep talking about useful *warnings*, you keep talking about *numbers*. >>> No you don't. You said: >>> >>>>>>>>>> People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually >>>>>>>>>> the greater the better or in this case the worse) which >>>>>>>>>> creates another set of confusion. >>> That is talking about numbers. >> >> And you were complaining about your comments being taken out of context? > > Yes, I am, because that statement of your above _was_ the context for the > whole rest of the discussion.
No, that is not correct. > You were interrupting in between me saying "The > situation is X" and my next sentence where I continued "Because of Y". *You* > were the one who said that the numbers were a problem because people would > expect some kind of monotonic increase in warnings related to the numbers, I > was the one who pointed out that the suggestion originally offered exactly > matched that situation. > > Seriously, if you think something like this: > >>> Your argument makes no sense. >> >> Do you think that assertion makes sens when no evidence is >> provided to support it? >> >>> > You said that there was a problem because >>> > people will expect numbered -W options to be ordinal. > > ... is anything other than a pedantic interruption in the middle of a coherent > argument, you have a communication problem. The basic unit of meaning in > English is the paragraph, you can't take part of it alone and expect it to > make sense out of context, but if you're going to accuse me of doing the same, > well, here's your entire original paragraph: > >> People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually >> the greater the better or in this case the worse) which >> creates another set of confusion. Geodelization is great >> for machines, hardly so as human interface. > > There was only one extra sentence in it in the first place, and that other > sentence doesn't relate to the first sentence in any way, so I did *not* take > your idea out of any kind of context that could in any way have contributed to > its coherency. Not just because you wanted to make it sound as if it did not have any relation -- so that you can embark on your rhetoric -- means there was no relation. If you want to talk about pedantic interruption, why don't you start with what you see in the mirror? > So let's get this silly subthread back on track; I do not believe you missed any effort to get credit here. > here's the > summary of where we're at, with all the sidetracks taken out: > >>>> > -W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w) >>>> > -W1: default >>>> > -W2: equivalent to the current -Wall >>>> > -W3: equivalent to the current -Wall -Wextra >>> >>> I like this suggestion a lot. >> >> People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually >> the greater the better or in this case the worse) which >> creates another set of confusion. > > My response to that is that is not a "set of confusion", because there is > indeed an ordering to the numbers, with zero being less warnings and 3 being > most warnings, and therefore it is not a source of confusion but actually a > source of correct knowledge about what the situation actually would be, and > therefore that using -W<number> in that way would be a good idea. Now, I > admit that I have assumed you meant "source of confusion" rather than "set of > confusion", since the latter phrase means nothing in English, so if that's > where our misunderstanding has arisen, and you meant something other, then > please speak up now and make it clear what you actually meant to convey. > > cheers, > DaveK >
