Sherm Pendley wrote:
Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim Burton wrote:
Or you could stop feeding the trolls.
Does not apply. The OP was not being trollish
You obviously don't know Xah. He's been doing this for years, cross-
posting to various language groups trying to start an argument
Lew wrote:
But if Xah were being trollish, why didn't they jump on my response and
call me names?
I'm not sure he's a proper troll. Unfortunately, he seems to be the kind
of person who thinks that reading Java for Dummies makes one a
self-sufficient expert on Java and philosopher of
Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But if Xah were being trollish, why didn't they jump on my response
and call me names?
Xah never replies to the threads he starts. At least, I've never known him
to do so.
I still think that analysis of the original post is a useful exercise
to learn Java.
On 21 Mar, 19:11, Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dr. Who wrote:
Don't Feed The Trolls :-)
But, but - you fed me!?
[blah]
We could put up a contest - whoever finds and corrects the most errors in the
post wins. Ties broken by the quality of the correct explanations. Incorrect
explanations
Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Xah Lee wrote:
In a functional language, a function can be specified by its name and
Are you sure you know what a functional language is?
parameter specs. For example:
f(3)
f(3, [9,2])
f(some string)
This is not really typical syntax for a functional
Jim Burton wrote:
Or you could stop feeding the trolls.
People need to stop saying that. The original post was a detailed if incorrect
exposition of Java information. How in the world do you rate that trollish?
I have absolutely no reason to rate the OP as a troll or their post as trollish.
Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim Burton wrote:
Or you could stop feeding the trolls.
Does not apply. The OP was not being trollish
You obviously don't know Xah. He's been doing this for years, cross-
posting to various language groups trying to start an argument between
them. He even brags
On 22 Mar, 12:45, Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Burton wrote:
Or you could stop feeding the trolls.
People need to stop saying that. The original post was a detailed if incorrect
exposition of Java information. How in the world do you rate that trollish?
I have absolutely no reason to
jim burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 22 Mar, 12:45, Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Burton wrote:
Or you could stop feeding the trolls.
People need to stop saying that. The original post was a detailed if
incorrect
exposition of Java information. How
Lew wrote:
Jim Burton wrote:
Or you could stop feeding the trolls.
People need to stop saying that. The original post was a detailed if
incorrect
exposition of Java information. How in the world do you rate that trollish?
a) Xah's posting history.
b) the cross-posting
c) the advocacy of
Xah Lee wrote:
In a functional language, a function can be specified by its name and
Are you sure you know what a functional language is?
parameter specs. For example:
f(3)
f(3, [9,2])
f(some string)
This is not really typical syntax for a functional language. LISP, for
example, has the
Don't Feed The Trolls :-)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Dr. Who wrote:
Don't Feed The Trolls :-)
But, but - you fed me!?
Oh, wait, I'm only a half-troll, on my father's side.
Thanks for the attention.
Kidding aside, a post like the OP's is useful as an exercise in finding the
errors, grammatical and factual. It's like a math book I had in my
On Java's Interface
Xah Lee, 20050223
In Java the language, there's this a keyword “interface”.
In a functional language, a function can be specified by its name and
parameter specs. For example:
f(3)
f(3, [9,2])
f(some string)
are usage examples of 3 functions all having the same name, but
No.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
15 matches
Mail list logo
