Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea.

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:41:32 -0700, rurpy wrote:

> On 10/31/2013 02:41 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:48:55 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>>> On 10/30/2013 04:22 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>>> Skybuck's experience at programming *is relevant* to the question of
>>>> whether or not he understands what he is talking about.
>>> No.  You claimed his proposition "made no sense" based on your
>>> analysis of it.
>> 
>> I said absolutely nothing of the sort. You're making that quote up --
>> not just misinterpreting what I said, or taking my words in the worst
>> possible way, but completely inventing things I never said.
> 
> Yes, on rereading you are correct, you did not say his proposition made
> no sense, you disagreed with him that "putting this exit condition on
> the top makes no sense" and claimed he had no business making such a
> statement

I said nothing of the sort.

Good lord Rurpy, I've already called you out once for misrepresenting 
what I've said, and here you are doing it again. You didn't have the good 
graces to even say sorry, instead trying to weasel out of an apology with 
a feeble "acknowledge[ment] that I overstated your position", and here 
you are again digging yourself deeper into the hole. That's three posts 
in a row -- your original post where you characterised me as making an 
"attack" on Skybuck, the second post where you escalated by attributing 
words I never wrote to me, and now this one where yet again you continue 
to misrepresent my post despite being called out on it.


[...]
> I am saying that your claim
> that he has no programming experience is not supported by what he wrote

I did not claim Skybuck had "no business" (your words) making such a 
statement about loop conditions. Far from it, I treated his opinion as a 
serious one worthy of discussion, discussing situations that both support 
and contradict his idea.

I *asked him* if he had programming experience, with an explicit 
question, and even began the question with the sort of social lubricant 
that acknowledges that the question is a touchy one ("please excuse my 
question"). I suggested that *it seems* that he doesn't have such 
experience. The normal, good-faith implication of this is that I am 
stating an opinion of how it seems to me, not an absolute fact. The whole 
exercise was to engage Skybuck in conversation, give him a chance to 
demonstrate (or at least assert) that I was mistaken about his lack of 
experience, and defend or amend his claim that putting the loop condition 
at the beginning of the loop makes no sense.

Unless you are prepared to discuss this in good faith, instead of 
continuing to misrepresent what I say, I am done discussing this with you.



-- 
Steven