In
<CAE1XxDEJD+VPiOKQWV=pwofs3xsbo2ppmc0n_bu7qko8vy7...@mail.gmail.com>,
on 12/09/2012
at 08:27 AM, John Gilmore <[email protected]> said:
>This view may well be appropriate and adequate to the things Shmuel
>wants to do with data. My shared-tables system proceeds otherwise.
You have not, however, given a reason for it.
>Two of its principal table types are generated respectively by 242
>and 1007 macros. Instances of a table type sometimes include a
>particular subtable/extension and sometimes do not; and I
>accordingly make heavy use of V-type ADCONs in generating them.
Why? If there's a reason to not use AD(foo), you haven't given it.
>Moreover, as Shmuel ought properly to have garnered from this
>thread,
As you should have figured out, I used the term A-con to mean, e.g.,
A, AL3, AD.
>I suspect
Your suspicions are generally either wrong or followed by claims that
are wrong; such is the case here.
>he was, as too often, making a debater's point,
Another lie.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
