Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: cdecl keyword and flames
Message-ID: <7752@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 24 Apr 88 17:46:19 GMT
References: <many> <7606@brl-smoke.ARPA> <982@micomvax.UUCP> <7682@brl-smoke.ARPA> <994@micomvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: Gwyn@BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab, APG, MD.
Lines: 51

In article <994@micomvax.UUCP> ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes:
>In article <7682@brl-smoke.ARPA> (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>>Point 4: My home computer uses a scheme exactly as I have described; ...
>>	Don't accuse me of lack of experience!
>Tch.  Tch.  Doug.  Now we are in fantasy land.  This is a fine example of
>going off at half cock, as in the recent "goto's" fiasco.

How did I "go off at half cock" in the "goto's fiasco"?
All I recall doing is supporting Henry's right to his opinion
about excessive use of goto, which I think is technically sound,
while mildly criticizing his lack of tact in flaming the company
publicly.  (It certainly wasn't clear to either of us that the
original opinion was not intended to represent the way that
programming was generally done in that company; we inferred quite
the contrary.)  Any blowing out of proportion was done by those
on the other side of the issue.  (I even stated that I use gotos
myself when it's appropriate, but not otherwise.)

>I will pay a handsome reward to the first person who can point out any
>accusation of lack of *experience* in my posting.

	Quoting from <982@micomvax> by Ray Dunn:

	If I could be so bold, from the documentary evidence of the
	exchange on this subject, at the time of Doug's initial one
	line sarcastic dismissal of cdecl he either did *NOT* understand
	its full ramifications, or he still does not understand its
	usefulness or the power hybrid language programming can provide.
	...
	Yup, he doesn't understand.

I take this as a clear statement that I don't understand hybrid
language programming, which as I strongly implied I have considerable
experience with.  Granted that experience and understanding are
not totally equivalent, perhaps I should have said "Don't accuse
me of lack of understanding!"  I didn't realize we were going to
try to play sophomoric word games instead of discussing the issue.
Because of this technicality I guess I don't qualify for the
"handsome reward".

I explained what is wrong with the "cdecl" approach to this issue,
but Dunn chooses not to counter the technical argument and instead
tries to impugn my psychological functioning (see <994@micomvax>).
If I were an onlooker I know what conclusion I would draw from this
concerning the defensibility of the respective positions.

I apologize for not including technical content in this posting,
but I've said all that I thought needed saying about "cdecl".
This posting is simply a response to what I think was an unjustified
personal attack.  If Dunn wants to follow up in alt.flame, that does
seem appropriate.