Okay Erik, you win. Here's my post, reformatted and with the bile trimmed. I'm actually quite interested in your answer to the last question if you're still "playing".
In fact I used to be quite careful about wrapping my lines manually before sending but I honestly thought all newsreaders would wrap them if they were wider than the screen these days. In using long lines I have been trying to work around Outlook Express Disease, but if the cure is worse than the disease for some people then I'm happy to change back.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Carl Gay <carl...@mediaone.net> > > This doesn't really have anything to do with parentheses, though > > s-expressions probably make it easier to deal with code as data than, > > say, messing around with abstract syntax trees.
> S-expressions are abstract syntax trees, for all practical purposes.
Sorry to be imprecise. I think s-expressions are an easier way to deal with code as data than most AST APIs probably are. I could be wrong.
> > Personally, I think the ability to treat code as data is overrated. At > > least for the types of programming I tend to do. It's certainly not > > essential in order to see the huge benefits Lisp can give you.
> I think the middle sentence is true.
The first sentence is a fact that only I can confirm. The third is the only one about which there can be any useful debate. I don't particularly like your way of claiming the third is false. Are you going to say why you think it's false?
> > Some people have started referring to them as "syntax extensions", which > > may help prevent confusion by association with C-like "macros". > > Stressing the ability to do control-flow abstraction with them might also > > help.
> That would be a good thing for Scheme. Common Lisp is not Scheme.
I don't understand. Why does this have anything to do with Scheme? Why did you get the impression that I think Common Lisp is Scheme?
In article <3B9D03BF.35726...@mediaone.net>, Carl Gay wrote: >Okay Erik, you win. Here's my post, reformatted >and with the bile trimmed. I'm actually quite >interested in your answer to the last question >if you're still "playing".
>In fact I used to be quite careful about wrapping my >lines manually before sending but I honestly thought >all newsreaders would wrap them if they were wider than >the screen these days.
My physical screen can show a good 200 characters across, if not more. I'm not willing to read 200 character long lines. Go to a library and find a book which is typeset with such long lines.
People nowadays are often found using windowed displays. A window-based newsreader may occupy only a portion of the screen ``real estate'', as determined by the user's preference, not necessarily the entire screen. Users do not necessarily want to maximize their newsreader to accomodate long lines. So the widespread use of high resolution windowed displays has not led to the obsolescence of the 79 column rule of Usenet. This rule allows one to resize the newsreader window once to accomodate the longest line, and then never have to play with the size again. The specific number 79 is not as important as the existence of a standard number that everyone agrees upon. The choice happens to coincide with the limitations of certain character-based display hardware that is still in wide use. It also happens to be a good width for readability; it's not so wide that the eye has difficulty advancing from the end of one line to the start of the next, yet not so narrow that the scan is distracted by too many eye movements. It also leads to a reasonable window size that leaves lots of space for other things on a modern graphical desktop.
>trying to work around Outlook Express Disease, but if >the cure is worse than the disease for some people then >I'm happy to change back.
People using Outlook Express to emulate the functionality of a newsreader are morons. There are actual newsreaders available for the Windows platform, so there is no need for the rest of Usenet to cater to any real or imagined problems experienced by Outlook Express users.
> In fact I used to be quite careful about wrapping my lines manually > before sending but I honestly thought all newsreaders would wrap them if > they were wider than the screen these days. In using long lines I have > been trying to work around Outlook Express Disease, but if the cure is > worse than the disease for some people then I'm happy to change back.
Tell Outlook Express victims that they can turn off this misfeature and if they refuse to do so, just ignore them.
> Are you going to say why you think it's false?
It is inherently self-limiting in scope and therefore irrelevant.
> I don't understand. Why does this have anything to do with Scheme? Why > did you get the impression that I think Common Lisp is Scheme?
Because your view of what macros can do is also self-limiting, just like Scheme is. Keep an open mind to what macros can do and do not think of them as merely "syntax extensions". They are that, too, of course, but not only that.
> * Carl Gay <carl...@mediaone.net> > > In fact I used to be quite careful about wrapping my lines manually > > before sending but I honestly thought all newsreaders would wrap them if > > they were wider than the screen these days. In using long lines I have > > been trying to work around Outlook Express Disease, but if the cure is > > worse than the disease for some people then I'm happy to change back.
> Tell Outlook Express victims that they can turn off this misfeature and > if they refuse to do so, just ignore them.
The last time I looked there was no way to turn it off. (Though that may have been in Outlook, not Outlook Express.) There are people who use Outlook that I can't afford to ignore. They also aren't morons, as Kaz Whozy would have us believe.
> > Are you going to say why you think it's false?
> It is inherently self-limiting in scope and therefore irrelevant.
You really _are_ just playing a game here, so I guess there's no point in continuing.
> The last time I looked there was no way to turn it off.
There is. Outlook Express users can fix this problem easily, it just takes wading through the enormous set of options that its users can customize to get non-standard behavior. There is no one option that can restore conforming news behavior, but a billion ways to break it.
> There are people who use Outlook that I can't afford to ignore.
Outlook? Sure. Outlook Express? Well, I have just set up a private, secure news system for collaboration on a legal project and we asked people what kind of clients they were using. Outlook Express had less than half the users. Those who suffer this terrible software affliction have to be taught several things: Do not leave the message you reply to on the bottom of your article, but actually insert your responses where they indicate what they are in response to; turn off the goddamn line breaking mishabit; quit posting HTML; and more...
> > > Are you going to say why you think it's false?
> > It is inherently self-limiting in scope and therefore irrelevant.
> You really _are_ just playing a game here, so I guess > there's no point in continuing.
No, I am not. That you think so would have been frustrating if I cared, but you are dead set on telling me and everyone else how I think, so I have no interest in playing along with your silly mind games. Go away.
> No, I am not. That you think so would have been frustrating if I cared, > but you are dead set on telling me and everyone else how I think, so I > have no interest in playing along with your silly mind games. Go away.
Odd, this is exactly the way I felt about your responses to my posts. I guess we were just not meant to play together.
"Stephen Harris" <stephen.p.har...@worldnet.att.net> writes: > So Word2000 fulfills a need perfectly for some users.
"Perfectly" is not the word: For most of the users where Word2000 fulfils a need, there were much more appropriate (easier to learn, simpler to use) wysiwig editors (including early versions of Word itself) 15 years ago. -- (espen)
Carl Gay <carl...@mediaone.net> writes: > You're so combative. I think you may have "issues".
> Erik Naggum wrote:
> > [ Please break your lines. ] > No, sorry, but I intentionally don't break my lines. You're > newsreader ought to be able to wrap lines to the appropriate width. > If I break my lines then losing newsreaders like Outlook Express > will break them again in inappropriate places. (Of course my tactic > only delays the inevitable by one reply iteration.)
We read instead: "Sorry, I intentionally break the RFCs."
Why on earth should anyone want to be cooperative with someone that is intentionally refusing to conform with public standards?
> I don't understand. Why does this have anything to do with Scheme? > Why did you get the impression that I think Common Lisp is Scheme?
Well, you demonstrably don't care about news standards, so why should anyone expect that you'd be interested in conforming with language standards? -- (concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@acm.org") http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html Q: Can SETQ only be used with numerics? A: No, SETQ may also be used by Symbolics, and use it they do.
> Carl Gay <carl...@mediaone.net> writes: > > You're so combative. I think you may have "issues".
> > Erik Naggum wrote:
> > > [ Please break your lines. ]
> > No, sorry, but I intentionally don't break my lines. You're > > newsreader ought to be able to wrap lines to the appropriate width. > > If I break my lines then losing newsreaders like Outlook Express > > will break them again in inappropriate places. (Of course my tactic > > only delays the inevitable by one reply iteration.)
> We read instead: "Sorry, I intentionally break the RFCs."
Actually I don't, but even if I did "break the RFCs" the idea that everyone must read the RFCs before posting to newsgroups is ludicrous anyway...
> Why on earth should anyone want to be cooperative with someone that is > intentionally refusing to conform with public standards?
Personally, I don't think many people who post to this newsgroup are interested in being cooperative or even non-confrontational.
> > I don't understand. Why does this have anything to do with Scheme? > > Why did you get the impression that I think Common Lisp is Scheme?
> Well, you demonstrably don't care about news standards, so why should > anyone expect that you'd be interested in conforming with language > standards?
My question had nothing to do with language standards.
> Actually I don't, but even if I did "break the RFCs" the idea that > everyone must read the RFCs before posting to newsgroups is ludicrous > anyway...
Whoever raised this idea before you now try to refute it? Such strawman arguments are pretty solid signs of a dishonest or combative personality.
> Personally, I don't think many people who post to this newsgroup are > interested in being cooperative or even non-confrontational.
This attitude of yours has certainly shaped your own behavior and you seem to get precisely what you want, like every other moron who comes here with a combative personality disorder where the primary concern is to express objection to any real or perceived authority, from RFCs via tacitly accepted conventions to people who know what they are talking about. Why are you not happy getting what you seem to want? Perhaps _you_ are mistaken about other people and _you_ cause them to behave towards you in ways that _you_ invite them to, but would not if you had been showing at least _some_ signs of being a reasonably good person?
Now, chances are very good that you will not be able to see through your own attitude problem, but will instead consider this message proof of everything you believe. You have posted some highly annoying and false claims about other people and you get a hostile response, which you _deserve_, but you take it as evidence of your initial assumption. Now, if your goal is to find out if other people are violent, is the best way to do that to provoke them by stabbing them in the eye in the interest of "behavioral science research" or to deal with people on non-violent terms first? It is actually your choice, and let me just remind you that _I_ dealt with your "fuck the news conventions" attitude by asking you to please break your lines, and your response was "You're so combative. I think you may have "issues"." I think we now know who has "issues" and what they are: An irrational rejection of _any_ authority. The question is: Can you discard your issues and just talk about what you think is worth your while talking about instead of being a combative jerk? Or will you now respond childishly with rejection of the perceived authority who tells you to behave? Again, it is actually your very own choice, but I am of course making it harder for you to do the right thing, because it would not be showing any character on your part to behave well if _you_ were treated nicely first. However, considering your behavior towards me, I would like to see if you can behave yourself or will remain a combative jerk towards anyone who tells you to can it.
> Actually I don't, but even if I did "break the RFCs" the idea > that everyone must read the RFCs before posting to newsgroups > is ludicrous anyway...
> Personally, I don't think many people who post to this newsgroup are > interested in being cooperative or even non-confrontational.
[snip]
...with non-cooperative, confrontational people. That's still may be a failing, but hardly the same sort.
BTW, goolge doesn't wrap lines, so your unwrapped posts are a pain in the rear to anyone who doesn't personally archive every message, or likes to be able to discuss a message with other without haveing to forward.
