Simon Cozens wrote: > > Jeff: > > > >Well, it's unhappy when you do lots of things. The code I was given was > > > >not as complete/functional as I had been led to believe, inasmuch as it > > Eh, I didn't lead you to believe anything, and in fact I think I said it had > portability issues.
Many apologies for my earlier comments. I made my comments late at night, and wasn't in a proper frame of mind. After looking at the situation, I understand why it was written the way it was, and that I'm (of course) trying to use it for some things that were designed in after it was written. My comments were solely borne out of frustration over some other issues that shouldn't have come in to this. And thank you, Simon, for explaining your viewpoint. I think I'm fully in agreement with the concept of a machine-oriented assembler, but until we have machines writing the majority of code, it's my feeling that we need a few concessions for human authors. It was in the process of adding those concessions that I grew frustrated, and the two should never have been related. I am more aware than most people of your contributions to Parrot, Simon, and I realize that what I said offended. It was never my intention to alienate you, and that thought should simply never have been expressed at all. Maybe this episode will teach me to wait until morning to send potentially controversial email. Thank you for your attention, and potential future contributions. -- Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
