On 9/29/11 11:07 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu"<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 9/29/11 10:15 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On 9/29/11 6:57 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/29/11 9:55 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
And the rest of us feel the same way about our arguments.
Argumentum ad populum :o).
Errm . no? Argumentum ad populum would e.g. be »and the rest of us
believe that your arguments are inferior, Andrei, so you are wrong«. :P
That is implied. Either way, "the rest of us" attempts to build strength
in numbers.
Pardon the confusion. That's not the way I meant it. (Perhaps you're just
looking for fallacies where there aren't any? j/k ;) )
Well to a good extent.
What I meant is that:
1. Both you and the rest of us all feel that we stated our arguments "fairly
and without appealing to either honor or guilt by association".
I think I can create a case that a recurring argument in favor of
changing std.getopt was guilt and honor by association. The existing
design was associated with the generally poor practice of using globals,
and the proposed design was associated with the generally desirable
practice of encapsulation.
The fact of the matter is that std.getopt is fine as it is. It is not
even a singleton object - it's the monostate pattern, for which
module-level data is perfect.
I argue that you don't want to create several distinct "GetOpter"
objects and the design should emphatically NOT cater for such cases.
Since it's only one monomorphic object (and one with only one "method"
at that), the current design is entirely adequate.
2. There is and will always be room for both sides to come up with claims of
logical fallacies.
Mos def. For what I can tell I was struck by the honor by association.
Designs without globals are good, therefore the proposal for changing
std.getopt marks an improvement. This syllogism is fallacious.
3. Therefore, pulling out nitpicky meta-argument cards doesn't do either
side any good - it just ends up a stalemate and draws attention away from
the more important face-value discussion.
Yah, the banter could go on forever.
Andrei
