Re: Problem with linker
"Doug Harrison [MVP]" <dsh@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:fj00735iv4fgiameq6pm78fhtq7rd9m4uq@4ax.com...
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.
What you fail to understand, Doug, is this: there is no "fundamental level"
for default arguments. Any 1st semester programmer can understand them.
That's why I said I wasn't interested in discussing compiler theory with you
to the nth degree. You seem to think I should want to. Get this: I don't.
And since you seem to think this is a character flaw on my part, I now have
to spend the time making it clear that it is no such thing.
All I said was that I miss default arguments in C#. And David W. said he
missed const. Then you started this whole thesis on the whys and wherefores
of default arguments and took it up with Joe on whether they should be in
ctors or not. I clarified my position that I don't care about that, which
again, you think is a character flaw on my part.
I enjoy your technical details, but really, they don't mean a hill of beans
to either me, my clients, or the code I write for them. That's why I refuse
to get into it with you. Frankly I'd rather earn another hour's wage than
duke it out with you because I get no satisfaction on winning a discussion
on something that doesn't mean anything to me anyway.
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.
Unless you think there is something in error with my assertion that I miss
default arguments in C# and I wouldn't miss them in ctors (whether or not it
is safe for them to be there), you've got the wrong man.
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.
I never said Joe was right or took a side in that debate, which I have no
interest in (which I've told you several times now). I said that IF he was
right, then go ahead and leave them out. End of story.
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.
It will be interesting to see if you can let this die, because your history
is you like to take the finest point and goad on and on and on. Like that
comment about who called it syntactic sugar or unnecessary optimization with
slight convenience (or whatever the other term was, again, I'm not
interested enough to go back and find it). Who cares? Everyone else knows
the idea is that the concept of default arguments was being trivilized to
the point that the compiler writers could be lazy and leave it out. Does
the exact wording and who called it what really matter? Apparently to you,
and apparently you think anyone else who doesn't think so is beneath your
"high horse".
It's you who turned this personal and were unwilling to let it go, making me
have to respond yet again to your misguided charges.
-- David