In article
<528c3029-c486-470e-923a-8c34f30e870b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
piscesboy <oraclmaster@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jun 12, 12:32 pm, Dave Seaman <dsea...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:07:43 -0700 (PDT), piscesboy wrote:
> > > On Jun 12, 8:24 am, Dave Seaman <dsea...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:05:19 -0700 (PDT), piscesboy wrote:
> > >> > On Jun 11, 10:18 pm, Dave Seaman <dsea...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> >> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:05:58 -0700 (PDT), piscesboy wrote:
> >
> > >> >> >> By the way, "test" is a very poor choice for the name of an
> > >> >> >> executable
> > >> >> >> program. Don't be surprised if executing the program appears
to
> > >> >> >> produce
> > >> >> >> no response at all, since "test" is a shell builtin.
> > >> >> > It is in fact a "test". A dummy program that I built to learn
> > >> >> > about
> > >> >> > Objective-C. It isn't meant to be proprietary software or a
final
> > >> >> > release at all. I have exactly 24 hours worth of Objective-C
> > >> >> > experience as of this posting, so I am very much a novice at
this
> > >> >> > stuff.
> >
> > >> >> Evidently you didn't read my explanation of why "test" is a poor
> > >> >> choice
> > >> >> for naming an executable program. I was not suggesting anything
at
> > >> >> all
> > >> >> about what kind of program it is, but only what is likely to
happen
> > >> >> when
> > >> >> you type "test", expecting this to run your program.
> >
> > >> > Evidently, you don't understand the difference between an
executable C
> > >> > file and a shell command.
> >
> > >> I learned that difference around 1980. It's the difference I was
trying
> > >> to explain to you, but it went over your head on the first try.
>
>...
>
> > If you had merely meant to say that you understood the problem and
knew
> > how to avoid it, then why didn't you just say so in the first place
> > instead of responding as if you had completely failed to comprehend
the
> > point?
>
> No, these are your exact words, Dave:
>
> " I was not suggesting anything at all
> about what kind of program it is, but only what is likely to happen
> when you type "test", expecting this to run your program."
But before that, his exact words were (still up at the top of this post):
| Don't be surprised if executing the program appears to produce no
| response at all, since "test" is a shell builtin.
Your response was completely irrelevant to his warning. How awful of him
to assume that meant you didn't understand the warning instead of just
realizing you were a self-im****tant prick.
> Then I responded by saying that that is NOT how I run my program, I
> type "./test" not "test" as you thought I did. Then I responded that
> that is not how I run my program and the discussion should have ended
> there but no...you clearly assumed I would not know the difference
> between the two by saying the previous post of yours went over my head
> which is intellectually insulting.
Assuming that someone who responds to your statements with irrelevancies
did understand what you were saying is insulting? Is it as insulting as,
say, telling someone that you know better than they what motivated an
action on their part? You've essentially implied that Dave's either
insane or a liar, with no evidence of either.
G
--
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ...
burning?"
- Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix
|
