You typed so many patches unrelated thing that help me thought your time is
cheap. It is cheap talking to me.
Personally I'm so curious why you think blocklist is a weapon to threat
people. But anyway, I don't against your interesting opinions, since you
are always interesting.
Anyway, I would li
>I don't talk nonsense with you, and I didn't against your opinions even for
>your nonsense.
>The only thing I care is that, are you ready to back to the coding part, and
>show your code than cheap talking, now?
This isn’t exactly what I wrote about in my last e-mail, but it’s a similar
kind of
I don't talk nonsense with you, and I didn't against your opinions even for
your nonsense.
The only thing I care is that, are you ready to back to the coding part,
and show your code than cheap talking, now?
Best regards.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2024, 23:47 Maxime Devos wrote:
> Can you stop it with th
Can you stop it with the repetitive claims of “this is just my proposal, I have
freedom to state it, you don’t need to persuade me, etc.”? I’ve heard you the
first, dunno, 5 or so times. Except for the “just” qualifier, I did not
disagree anywhere. For why you shouldn’t do those repetitive claim
"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 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 p
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
>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
> >You can just say you've no idea about it,
>
> That’s true (i.e., I can say I have no idea about it), but I have no
> reason to lie about it, so I won’t. I did have an idea, and I gave the idea
> to you, as I mentioned in my two previous replies.
>
>
Thanks! This sentence saves a lot of time.
He
>>I already did. Also, no. Just because you know something is bad, doesn’t mean
>>you know a better solution, so it doesn’t automatically follow that a better
>>solution should be given.
>You can just say you've no idea about it,
That’s true (i.e., I can say I have no idea about it), but I have
>
> I already did. Also, no. Just because you know something is bad, doesn’t
> mean you know a better solution, so it doesn’t automatically follow that a
> better solution should be given.
>
You can just say you've no idea about it, such situation doesn't need to
write so many words to explain it
>I have no any interest to persuade you, just show my opinion and suggestions.
>And I also have no interest to argue with you about the design, because the
>efforts has made according to you suggestions.
This is a problem. Just making a proposal without following up on discussions
of its merits
I have no any interest to persuade you, just show my opinion and
suggestions.
And I also have no interest to argue with you about the design, because the
efforts has made according to you suggestions.
I'm trying to follow the idea to not waste any efforts have been made.
My suggestion is to find
>>Also, you are assuming “\n” is a line delimiter. This is true under Unix
>>according to the documentation. But it doesn’t say anything about non-Unix
>>systems.
>RnRs defined read-line to handle different newline properly.
It’s named (ice-9 rdelim) not (rnrs rdelim). Perhaps (ice-9 rdelim) co
> Also, you are assuming “\n” is a line delimiter. This is true under Unix
> according to the documentation. But it doesn’t say anything about non-Unix
> systems.
>
RnRs defined read-line to handle different newline properly. My original
idea is to stick to a pure line string reader iterator helpe
>I think these procedures are handy in common situations. There has been a
>discussion about generalization. I have the feeling that such generalization
>either already exists in some SRFI or that one should put some deep thinking
>into how to represent flexible iteration in Scheme.
If one sho
Adam,
Thanks for your patches! Applied now.
Best regards,
Mikael
I think these procedures are handy in common situations. There has been a
discussion about generalization. I have the feeling that such
generalization either already exists in some SRFI or that one should put
some deep thinking into how to represent flexible iteration in Scheme.
I don't think it w
Do others think this as well? To me, the shorter names which Adam selected
seem more palatable. Otherwise they get a bit long.
Den tis 17 dec. 2024 06:11Nala Ginrut skrev:
> The preferred activity in your design is more like for-each family, say,
> handle the result inside the proc without retur
The preferred activity in your design is more like for-each family, say,
handle the result inside the proc without return result. So maybe it should
be named as for-each-*-in-file, which is more understandable in the first
glance.
Best regards.
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024, 13:31 Adam Faiz wrote:
> From
19 matches
Mail list logo
