On 02-Jun-2000, Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > An interactive command line tool and a programming language intended
> > for writing non-trivial applications have very different requirements.
> > For the former, brevity may well be more
Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> An interactive command line tool and a programming language intended
> for writing non-trivial applications have very different requirements.
> For the former, brevity may well be more important than readability,
> but for the latter it is definitely
Jan Skibinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I watch in amusement how my name is glued to someone
> else's prose. I mildly protest :-)
Hah! You question a certain OS, you should expect your comments to
get snipped! Servers you right, it does. :-)
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further
On 02-Jun-2000, S.D.Mechveliani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
> > I could accept "mode flags" if the algorithm is extremely similar,
> > e.g. passing a comparator function to a sort is a kind of mode flag
> > (think ordered/reversed) which I think is perfec
On 01-Jun-2000, Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jan Skibinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > For tar_x, tar_xv, tar_v kind of things people
> > invented objects, recognizing that "tar -x"
> > approach is not a user friendly technology.
>
> Oh? You realize there are Unix we
Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> I could accept "mode flags" if the algorithm is extremely similar,
> e.g. passing a comparator function to a sort is a kind of mode flag
> (think ordered/reversed) which I think is perfectly acceptable.
> Having flags indicating algorithm to use (sort Merg
On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 04:06:59PM -0400, Jan Skibinski wrote:
>
> I watch in amusement how my name is glued to someone
> else's prose. I mildly protest :-)
>
> Jan
>
>
>
Sorry about that. If you pay close attention to the quoting levels (as I
obviously did not) there's no
Simon Raahauge DeSantis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems to me that mode flags only really make sense when we're combining
> modes. To continue the tar example it might be a bit much to have
> extractVerbosePreserve, extractPreserve etc etc. This is also done in C by
> |'ing 'flags' togethe
I watch in amusement how my name is glued to someone
else's prose. I mildly protest :-)
Jan
On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 07:23:55PM +0200, Ketil Malde wrote:
> Jan Skibinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, S.D.Mechveliani wrote:
>
> >> If you require the single functions
> >> sort_merge, sort_insert, sort_quick,
> >> do you also require
> >>
On 1 Jun 2000, Ketil Malde wrote:
> Jan Skibinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > For tar_x, tar_xv, tar_v kind of things people
> > invented objects, recognizing that "tar -x"
> > approach is not a user friendly technology.
>
> Oh? You realize there are Unix weenies on this l
On 1 Jun 2000, Ketil Malde wrote:
> I could accept "mode flags" if the algorithm is extremely similar,
> e.g. passing a comparator function to a sort is a kind of mode flag
> (think ordered/reversed) which I think is perfectly acceptable.
> Having flags indicating algorithm to use (sort Merge (s:
Jan Skibinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, S.D.Mechveliani wrote:
>> If you require the single functions
>> sort_merge, sort_insert, sort_quick,
>> do you also require
>> tar_x, tar_xv, tar_v instead of tar
>> ?
If tar was impl
On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, S.D.Mechveliani wrote:
> About the type constructor for mode, I half-agree.
> But about a single function - no.
> If you require the single functions
> sort_merge, sort_insert, sort_quick,
> do you also require
> tar_x, tar_xv, tar_v
Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 1 Jun 2000
>> 'n' :: Char does not hold a name in the constructor name space.
> Yes, but it is also far from self-expanatory. With a constructor
> name, in a suitable environment you could just click on the
> constructor name and the environment
15 matches
Mail list logo
