On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 03:29 -0700, Derick Eddington wrote: > On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 11:59 +0200, Michele Simionato wrote: > > On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Abdulaziz Ghuloum <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> In implicit phasing there is a single instance for all phases, > > > > > > No there isn't! (are we hitting another communication barrier?) > > > I'm officially confused with where you're coming from and where > > > you're going with this argument. Sorry. > > > > Again the issue of separate compilation, Yes if you have separate > > compilation the compile time instance *of the library* is separated > > from the compile time instance of the script. However, the compile > > time and the runtime instances *of the script* are the same. > > You're being confusing again. If a library utilized for phase 1 of a > script was separately compiled, the compile-time instance of that > library used for the compile-time of the script is not separated from > the compile-time instance of the script because there is no compile-time > instance of a script, never ever! What the hell do you mean?
BTW, that was only meant as a joke. I know what you meant, but you see how using "of" when you should have used "for" can be confusing. I don't speak a second language, and I admire you for being able to, so I apologize. -- : Derick ----------------------------------------------------------------
