[DGD] Re: My idea for the DGD driver - validate

[Robert Forshaw]

>From: Noah Gibbs <noah_gibbs at yahoo.com>
>You're working hard to alienate the list again.  Just so it's been
>mentioned.

Oh, so someone insults me and I'm supposed to play dead? It isn't my problem 
if you can't deal with that.

>
>We consider most individual pieces of trivia to be separately
>obscure.

I don't remember you being assigned the position of group leader. We are all 
individuals so you are only speaking for yourself. You are wrong in this 
statement because I don't agree with you.

>For instance, you didn't know that the -> operator is just a
>macro for call_other(), and we figured that was okay.  It's obscure.
>Similarly, we didn't necessarily assume you had static and private
>figured out.  They're individually obscure.

I don't agree, but since opinions aren't facts I don't see the point in 
arguing. You refered to knowing that '->' was in fact a macro as 'trivia'. I 
can accept that. I do not accept the same of 'static' and 'private'. I don't 
consider it trivia, because it is not trivial. It is a critical part of the 
object-orientated aspect of the LPC language, and fairly well referenced in 
most lpc documents. It's also quite a commonly-used keyword when looking 
through the code of any decent mudlib, such as kernel which I've already 
mentioned I have looked at.

>Thus, Stephen had a point
>when he said that wasn't fully obvious to him.

That doesn't bother me. What he said implied that I am inept, though. That 
was an insult.
>From: Stephen Schmidt <schmidsj at union.edu>
> > [snip]
>
>.
>.
>.
>.
>v
>
>*
>
>Plonk.

And there he does it again.

Who brought up 'private' and 'static' into the conversation? Erwin Harte. 
You may recall what his last post to me was before that one. It wasn't very 
friendly. Erwin Harte's 'help' did not apply to my post as I explained in my 
reply, and he would have realised this if he had read my post more 
carefully. I am making an assumption here, based on how he has treated me in 
the past, and I believe I'm entitled to make this assumption, but I think he 
was just seeking an oppertunity to sound condescending towards me. As far as 
I'm concerned, only a novice doesn't know what 'private' and 'static' are. 
It still does not apply to my original post, and since I'm the author of 
that post I think I should know. I've explained in detail why it does not 
apply in my reply to Erwin's post. If you think it somehow does apply and 
requires a lengthy argument, explain yourself, don't just keep telling me 
I'm wrong and waiting for a reaction. I'd like this discussion to be 
constructive.

> > >The fact that static is in fact quite applicable to your post
> > >could only confirm the non-obviousness of the earlier conclusion.
> >
> > I don't care about it. Please stay on topic.
>
>   He is on topic.  At least, he's on the topic you set.

The topic was not 'keep arguing that 'static' and 'private' are relevent to 
my post, even though I've already given an explanation as to why this is not 
the case and nobody else has bothered to give a counter-explanation, and in 
the meantime lose sight of the real topic of the post which was about a 
possible idea for the driver which has turned around into an idea for 
masking call_other, none of which has anything to do with some function 
security keywords which I've already proven to be irrelevent'. Also note 
that I said 'I don't care', meaning, I don't wish to continue this petty 
arguing over semantics any longer. I myself have got some useful feedback 
which has changed my original idea and provided me with an 
almost-as-good-solution, for which I have expressed my gratitude. I don't 
think there's any need to perpetuate this thread unless there is something 
to add to the original discussion about my validation idea. To clarify, 
anything that isn't about my validation idea, or the fallabilities of 
masking call_other, is probably off-topic, and you shouldn't post it.

_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

_________________________________________________________________
List config page:  http://list.imaginary.com/mailman/listinfo/dgd