On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 02:15:07AM +0100, Martin Nilsson (Åskblod) @ Pike (-) developers forum scribbled:
should obviously be avoided. There is a @throws keyword that should
^^^^^^^(Though, it isn't documented in refdoc/keywords.txt... :)
Sure, but that doesn't mean the documentation cannot be improved, does it?
Somewhat more serious mode: I think you should really think deep thoughts about this past discussion and contemplate why it is this forum often explodes when you start a thread. Niels tried to prevent it from
Martin, I do realize that I'm not being diplomatic at all. But I myself was told several times in those over 10 years on the 'Net that if you enter a public forum of people involved in software development, you should be prepared for flames and such. I know, it isn't an excuse and it is not meant to be one - the way I read it is that the only thing important is the message that is tried to be pushed on, not the wrapping. I do realize I use thought shortcuts or say things too directly or without carefully picking words, but I'm really tired of people requiring too many words to express something short and simple especially if it is said in the company of intelligent and knowledgable people. Diplomacy is fine, but it is also a waste of time.
racing early on, and we all share the fault for having this heated, fun
That's also my point above... I'd wish that it was possible to strip the words bare of emotions - especially that on forums like this (genreally, on the interenet) there are no reall emotions expressed - most of them are implied. It's our own reactions that assign emotions and emotional meaning to the words of others - it applies to all of us, probably to everyone on the 'Net.
and fairly unconstructive discussion. There is no better way to trigger
I disagree - it resulted in a cvs commit :)
the reply button at smart people than implying that they are stupid (see
I'm sorry that you preceived that, it was not my intention - and if you read my earlier messages without emotions, you will see that there was no offence intended nor contained in those messages. My (in short) statement 'the message is ambiguous and may be confusing' was meant to state just what those words mean - there was no personal context, it wasn't directed at anybody personally and yet it was perceived like so. It's probably my fault, as you say above, that I failed to employ diplomacy and wrap the meaning in round words. I'm trying to be as precise as I can in my words - that might be perceived to be rude etc. - it is not my intention, ever.
quote above). A good start is to avoid retoric questions. They are almost only useful when you are more interested in winning a debate than convincing the opponent. Or, as my teacher in philosophy said; Who needs retoric questions?
You're right on that one :) I'm sorry and I'll try to avoid unnecessary comments in the future and I do hope I cleared up my position above at least a bit.
marek