On Thursday, 4 August 2016 at 00:57:13 UTC, bitwise wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 August 2016 at 21:19:21 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 August 2016 at 19:57:13 UTC, bitwise wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 at 07:50:29 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Monday, 1 August 2016 at 19:33:48 UTC, bitwise wrote:
'scope' keyword, for example, is legal in D syntax, but
doesn't actually do anything.
sorry, but you are wrong here. of course, it does HAVE
effect.
I know about these cases, but didn't bother mentioning them,
as they are outliers. Also, they do not make my point any
less valid.
it does. actually, it makes your point completely false.
Nice troll.
not at all.
"a is false."
"but a is true!"
"ah, nevermind, continue execution."
one invalid point makes the whole technical argument false. it is
natural to dismiss it completely: author may wanted to do a good
thing, but he didn't bother to check his statements, so the whole
thing becomes invalid. instead of trying to dissect the thing
(and risking to hit author's response like "you took only part of
my statement instead of taking the whole picture!"), the whole
thing should be rejected. author can come with fixed patch^w
statement later, of course.
