Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!haven!adm!cmcl2!lanl!jlg
From: jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Jim's commitment to misleading the populace
Message-ID: <5811@lanl.gov>
Date: 13 Nov 90 20:32:10 GMT
References: <7101:Nov1008:51:4590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Organization: Los Alamos Natl Lab, Los Alamos, N.M.
Lines: 36

From article <7101:Nov1008:51:4590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, by brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein):
> [...]
> I believe that arrays should be a much more fundamental part of the
> language, and that pointers and arrays should be much more cleanly
> separated than they are in C. You know I hold this opinion. [...]

No, I _don't_ know that you hold this opinion.  This is the first
time you have explicitly stated it.  I am pleased that you think
this.  In previous articles, I always held the features I support as
a unified group (and you _seemed_ to attack them as such).  When you
make a statement about the features I support (that you collectively
call the "Giles Gaggle"), I naturally assume that you are referring
to _all_ of them.  If you didn't want your statement to apply to
arrays, you should have said so.

I would still have disagreed, of course.  I see no reason that arrays
should be singled out as the only higher-level construct to be present
and still inefficiently simulate all the others with pointers.  All
the "Giles Gaggle" can be simulated in arrays too (as most old Fortran
programmers can tell you).  I would not recommend preprocessing to
either.

> [...]
> I find your behavior absolutely disgusting. Sure, I often engage in some
> nasty rhetorical tricks, and I sometimes dodge the issue at hand; but I
> never pervert anyone's opinion, no matter how desperate I am to win an
> argument. And when I do realize that I've misinterpreted something, I'll
> say so. Maybe you should learn to do the same.

Since I could care less about "winning" an argument with you, your
complaint is completely unfounded.  However, if what you are _now_
claiming is correct, I'm perfectly willing to admit to previously
misinterpreting you.  I interpreted what you _actually_ wrote.  It
seems I have to do other than that.

J. Giles