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

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:50:02 -0700, rurpy wrote:

> Instead of endlessly repeating your misrepresentation charges along with
> exaggerations like "nothing of the sort", why don't you for once
> actually say how my paraphrase differs materially in meaning from what
> was said?

I have directly addressed your points three times. I did not "attack" the 
OP by any reasonable definition of the word. My post was not an ad 
hominem. Skybuck's experience as a programmer is relevant to the 
credibility of his opinions about programming. I did not declare as a 
fact that he had no experience, as you claim, but posed it as a question 
and expressed it explicitly as a subjective observation.

Each time I have responded to you, I have given direct quotes and 
directly addressed the substance of your posts, which is all to do with 
the supposed tone of my response to the OP. Each time you have continued 
to misrepresent me, misquote me, and interpret my words assuming bad 
faith rather than good, in order to justify your idea that my post was an 
ad hominem attack.

Including this post, where you make the false statement that:

    [quote]
    His idea was that loop tests should always or usually be done 
    at the end of the loop.  You discussed *nothing* that supported
    that idea.

Emphasis yours. But in fact I gave the concrete example of Pascal 
repeat...until loops, which have the test at the end of the loop. So yet 
again your claims are simply wrong.

This is four posts in a row now that you have wrongly represented me. I 
can only conclude that you think that by repeating a lie often enough, 
you'll convince others that it must be true and "win". I will no longer 
play this game with you. Goodbye.

*plonk*


-- 
Steven