bug-bash
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Help-bash] make function local


From: Eduardo A . Bustamante López
Subject: Re: [Help-bash] make function local
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 17:36:34 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)

Hey Linda. I do remember that thread, and I apologize for my words.

I honestly try my best here. But it seems that I cannot reply to you without
offending you, so, to avoid further offenses I will not reply to any further
email from you in the future.

I'm sorry that I offended you, it was not my intention, though that doesn't
matter much.


On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 03:27:12PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> 
> 
> Eduardo A. Bustamante López wrote:
> >Well, if your scripts are so simple, why use local functions at all?
> ---
>       Cleanliness, Hygiene...
> 
> > You're
> >claiming we invent stuff to make your examples fail, but I don't know anyone
> >that writes such complex code for very simple tasks that can even be done
> >without functions.
> ---
>       You know of me -- but you know nothing of my use case.
> 
> >So, the burden to prove these convoluted approaches are
> >justified is on *your* side.
> ---
>       I don't need to justify my code to you.  Someone asked
> for a use case, and I supplied one.
> 
>       I didn't write that code for this discussion.  Last mod-time was 1 month
> ago (Mar 17).  I wrote it BEFORE any of this discussion on
> local functions.
> 
> >The "local" function you provided is clearly a fake case.
> ---
>       If it is "clearly" a fake case, you are clearly an idiot.  I've
> been using that code for it's purpose, unchanged for over a month.  That's
> what is clear.
> 
> >Provide real world
> >cases, so that we can make real world criticism and take decisions that 
> >affect
> >people writing actual useful code.
> ----
>       Your definition of real-world cases are ones that you can provide
> "real world criticism" to shoot down any example provided.  I'm not the only
> one who notices that tendency on this list:
> 
> 
> Peng Yu wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Chet Ramey <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>[Show us your valid real world example]
> >
> >One could also ask the same question for local variables. Any limited
> >cases that show local variable is need, by definition, can be changed
> >to ones in which global variables can also work.
> >
> >Therefore,    ***no matter what small examples that I should show here, it
> >will   ***
> >   ***always be criticized as can be solved by an alternative solution ***.
> -----
> [Emphasis mine].
> Peng Yu says the same thing.  No matter what case someone comes up with,
> there are the rigid-thinkers who believe they, and they alone can judge
> what are "real world" and "not fake" cases.  GAG!
> 
> 
> >If that's the complete script...
> 
> Now you are setting up your own strawman cases to shoot down.
> 
> I showed 12 lines with an *ellipses* after the code out of a 70 line script
> and you start making arguments based on those 12 lines being the
> entirety of the script.
> 
> I deliberately didn't show the rest of the script because it was
> not important to show a use case developed and in use long before
> this discussion was started --- so unless you have some evidence that
> it is a 'fake' script, I'd say you are purposely lying to support
> your case.
> 
> You don't read what we write.  Just like with my note "IFS=:& splitting
> paths -- (maybe fixed in 4.3?)", where you answered "what the fuck".
> 
> If you had read the entire note -- I pointed out 4 examples of
> behavior that exists, asking "rhetorical" questions about how
> the behavior was justified -- because the last example contradicted
> the previous examples.
> 
> You skipped that last question in your response, and totally missed
> the point FLAMING me for my observations and questioning of behavior
> on the 1st 4.    Then you again go off on me saying:
> 
> "I guess you think that you look smart by
> obfuscating your code with aliases and weird names, but it's the opposite
> effect. Also, it annoys people that are trying to understand what you say to
> 'help'[sic] you."
> 
> Another example of your twisting words and not reading what is there:
> 
> I talked about IFS being 'thrashed' -- i.e. it no longer has it's initial
> default value, and there is no way to set it to "default"
> other than reinitializing it with some arbitrary hardcoded default.
> 
> You go off and say "what do you mean by 'IFS is trashed'?"
> 
> Notice "thrash" -- from "goog: define thrashed" 1st entry urban dictionary:
>   thrashed -- destroyed or hurt really badly, usually used to   refer to
> someone after they have tried a huge gap and died.
> 
> I was referring to a built-in variable that had it's default
> meaning (contents) overwritten to the point of not being able
> to recover it (except by hardcoding the current "default" into
> an assignment).
> 
> Please stop looking to pick apart my words.  It doesn't matter WHAT type of
> example I come up with.  You will
> find some reason to _not_ understand it and call it fake, unreal or
> annoying.  Please, Eduardo: learn some new way of "helping" people --
> calling them liars (accusing them of writing "fake" code) isn't helpful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Eduardo Bustamante
https://dualbus.me/



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]