This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-talk
mailing list for the cygwin project.
RE: religious wars
- From: "Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>
- To: "'don't you try and out old-git me, sonny jim! i was punching 80-column cards when you were in nappies.'" <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 02:11:57 +0100
- Subject: RE: religious wars
- References: <005301c7ac58$6a54cb70$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <000001c7ac8c$1724b8f0$020aa8c0@DFW5RB41>
- Reply-to: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
On 12 June 2007 01:53, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>> From: Dave Korn
> [...]
>>
>> ... because although I really dislike the ...
>>
>> if( arg )
>> x = FuncCall( arg );
>>
>> ... style and much prefer the GNU ...
>>
>> if (arg)
>> x = FuncCall (arg);
>>
>> ... Style
>
> Unfortunately, both are wrong. The right way to do it is:
>
> if(whatever)
Nahhh, that's so obviously not right at all! Because I say so, et de
gustibus non disputandum est, which means "I'm right in matters of taste so
don't argue"![1]
> {
> // Do something here. In these nice brackets.
> // Even if it's one line. Because
> // as soon as you type it it'll need to be two lines.
> // And then you'll have caused yourself a defect.
Heh. Gary, this may be a one-off, but I'll let you have it in writing
anyway:
I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID![*]
> }
>
> FunctionCall(arg1, another_arg);
>
> ...etc.
>
>> (and anyway, just exactly which direction do
>> brackets bind in in C, anyway, eh?),
>
> As shown above
Ah, glad you agree with me, I also think brackets should bind like above:
>> (and anyway, just exactly which direction do
^^
>> brackets bind in in C, anyway, eh?),
^^^
>
> As shown above
Seconded!
> , and like thus:
Again, wrong. See [1] above.
> Sure there is, I thought of that one like a decade ago. Trouble is, now
> you're asking folks to agree on the format of the formatting specifications.
Wait! I thot XML had come to save us all!??? Not ?!?
> Maybe some time-travelling, space-faring, utopian civilization in the far
> distant future will be able to come to some sort of agreement on such
> things, but for our lifetimes such an harmonious coexistence shall remain
> firmly in the realm of fantasy.
Nahh, I've seen the future. The time-travelling, space-faring, utopian
civilizations all exterminated each other in a merciless war over whether to
use CR-LF or just plain LF line-endings. (Much like the tiny, scurrying,
rat-like mammals who survived the meteor-strike that killed the dinosaurs, a
few Mac users were seen scurrying away, clutching their precious CR sacred
relics, accompanied by a few hippos. I reckon we won't have heard the last of
them...)
> Now if you will kindly excuse me, I have work to do in *this* century,
> sorting out my carriage returns from my linefeeds before my VT-52's screen
> gets burned in. GOOD DAY SIR!
***********************RRRRRRRRING!*
cheers,
DaveK
[*] - this offer void where prohibited by law.[**]
[**] - or just plain common sense.[***]
[***] - sorry, guess I just couldn't leave it without some kind of disclaimer,
could I, after all?
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....