Re: Problem with linker
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 04:35:30 GMT, "David Ching" <dc@remove-this.dcsoft.com>
wrote:
"Doug Harrison [MVP]" <dsh@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:0qku63pjv4v7qtkviah7347nlf1sih8hbo@4ax.com...
I'm used to people who like to understand the things they talk
about and enjoy talking about them. I will no longer mistake you for a
member of this group.
At this point, I still don't know whether you are in favor of default
arguments or not, which is what this discourse started about.
If you had asked that question, I would have responded to it, and it
wouldn't have been a snide retort such as your "Take it up with Joe." That
said, it would be a pretty safe bet that I don't have any objection to
something I've described essentially as redundant but convenient. Default
arguments have always existed and always will, and to me, the only thing
interesting in this thread so far is the erroneous claim that they cause
problems with overloading. If you believe that, or are at least bothered by
it enough to mention it (which you did), you can't hope to have a
meaningful discussion about the feature, because you don't understand it on
a rather fundamental level.
But that's
fine. Unlike you, I don't think any lesser of you for taking the
conversation in ways that I find meaningless.
It is not meaningless to correct factual errors and wrong explanations,
especially when they are the basis for advice given and apparently taken,
or at least repeated.
But neither do I put you down
for it, and that's what I mean about your high horse.
Huh? It was only after you told me "Take it up with Joe" and "don't get on
your high horse and proclaim to have a better argument because you don't"
that I responded with that last paragraph, which is the only thing you
quoted and replied to above. What you clipped from my last message were
things like:
They don't cause special problems. That's what I've been laboring to
explain over the course of several messages. I don't care whether you use
default arguments or not. What I care about is people learning the wrong
things and basing decisions on false beliefs. It is in that spirit that I
I've tried to carry on a technical conversation with you.
Why didn't you respond to that or my previous attempts to engage you in a
technical discussion? It's silly to say "Take it up with Joe" when for
several messages, I've been discussing with Joe the very thing you brought
up. It's silly to say, "don't get on your high horse and proclaim to have a
better argument because you don't" without identifying much less
challenging whatever "argument" you're attributing to me.
But enough wasted breath for both of us. Be seeing you.
You've once again turned a technical discussion into an unpleasant personal
exchange. You could at least have followed through on how you started your
last message, "Look, Doug, I'm not going to argue with you." Instead, all
you've done is argue. If you feel the need to respond to this with more of
the same, you will indeed have the last word. If you want to resume a
normal conversation, that would be preferable.
--
Doug Harrison
Visual C++ MVP