On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Aside: >> >> I hope you don't mind if I reply to this, which risks turning into a >> main branch of the discussion. > > Actually, Matt, I *do* mind. I was very clear here that even I had problems > with my explanation. It was an explicit acknowledgement that I was engaged > in a non-productive and likely wrong set of assumptions and notions. > > I do not understand why your frustration meter is set to 20 on a scale of 10 > this morning, but I'm not the enemy. It seems to be a pattern that when you > get frustrated with a discussion you become more confrontational. We all > make that mistake once in a while. It's not the end of the world. But please > take a step back, take a deep breath, and calm down a little. Your > contributions here are tremendously valuable, but they *never* arise from > your moments of frustration, because those moments don't lead to effective > communication.
I'm really sorry, Shap. In general, I figure the more I say, the more likely it is that the nature of the misunderstandings will become apparent. Maybe it also gets me riled up though. I suppose I was being too confrontational. My lame excusing for replying to that particular email was to clarify which things you might be thinking of taking back or changing. But guess I just ended up rubbing things in your face. >> Also, I should point out that if you allow regrouping, then of course >> this whole explanation is completely screwed. > > Can you please explain what you mean by "regroup"? To ungroup (fn 'arity 'a->'b->'c->'d) to (fn 1 'a->fn 1 'b->fn 1 'c->'d) or group in the other direction, or something like that. It was my name for what you were doing, which I still don't understand in detail. But anyway, that was all nonsense because I didn't realize you had switched to the rewrite model. Relative to that model, my explanation is also completely screwed. >> > No new proposition or conclusion here. Just an explanation of why I keep >> > getting stuck in this way. >> >> Shap, for all I know, in your proposal, you _should_ be getting stuck >> that way. That's how confused you've gotten me. > > I believe that is substantially what I said. Applying a mallet and a chisel > to my head to ensure that I noticed may not have been necessary. Sorry. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
