"I also care if the image in your mind is not what showed in your mind"
should be "showed in my mind" Best regards. On Fri, Dec 20, 2024, 23:30 Nala Ginrut <nalagin...@gmail.com> wrote: > As I said, I didn't against any of your opinions. But I have my freedom to > comment on what I think important. > > So I made my proposal accordingly to the specific issue as you pointed > out. This may not be accepted by you, but that's your freedom to share your > mind further. And I unnecessarily need to respond to it unless I think it's > worth. In case you thought people may misunderstand you, I also care if the > image in your mind is not what showed in your mind. I keep my comments > before anyone show the related code as you described. > > But let me emphasize it, this doesn't mean anyone is forced to reimplement > the code. At least I accept the current implementation. Don't forget, these > patches included your efforts either, and I respect that part too, in the > name of the code. Personally, I would like to comment on the existing code > rather than mind. > > This thread is not only you and me. Many others are reading it. You don't > need to persuade me. You just claim your mind directly, and wait for folks > agree it, or at least part of it. > Best regards. > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2024, 23:18 Maxime Devos <maximede...@telenet.be> wrote: > >> >Here are the "back to the track" reply for folks in this thread. >> >> > >> >> >So the situation is more clear now. The newline in various OS need to >> respectively tested. And my idea is to check OS via (uname) in test cases. >> >> >Now that it's in tests, I think we don't have to talk much about the >> efficiency issue for this specific case. >> >> >> >> No. See what I wrote previously about the subject, and note that most of >> it is independent of whether it’s for testing or not. As you previously >> said you intentionally did not read (parts of) the messages, I’m not going >> to repeat it for you. >> >> >> >> In addition: why not simply _*read*_ the implementation of (ice-9 >> rdelim) to see what platform-detecting mechanism it uses (if any) and reuse >> that, instead of reinventing the wheel? Sounds like it would save effort >> and time, which you seem particularly interested in, and claimed >> effort/time is one of your own arguments against generalisation. >> >> >> >> Also, it doesn’t need to be tested, since read-line is not what’s being >> added or modified here. (Tests for that may be good, but that’s off-topic, >> which you are rather against, and is your most coherent argument against >> generalisation.) Rather, either the used newline in the test needs to be >> adjusted per-platform, or the documentation of read-line needs to be >> adjusted to that \n is always a newline. >> >> >> >> Also, it’s also not a proper “back to the track” reply, since it ignores >> the ‘generalisation’ component of the track. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Maxime Devos >> >
