From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	RATWARE_MS_HASH,RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 108793,ea9e17ea4e695a57
X-Google-Attributes: gid108793,public
X-Google-Thread: fb3cb,ea9e17ea4e695a57
X-Google-Attributes: gidfb3cb,public
X-Google-Thread: f973d,ea9e17ea4e695a57
X-Google-Attributes: gidf973d,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,ea9e17ea4e695a57
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,ea9e17ea4e695a57
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 10a146,ea9e17ea4e695a57
X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public
X-Google-Thread: 115d3b,ea9e17ea4e695a57
X-Google-Attributes: gid115d3b,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ea9e17ea4e695a57
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Richard Heathfield" <complangc@eton.powernet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Partners Wanted
Date: 1999/07/13
Message-ID: <01becd6d$b3662de0$0e01a8c0@eton.powernet.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 500650048
References: <FEtE5A.Cu0@research.att.com>
 <7mfpke$ebq$1@mamenchi.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> <FEtKD3.G52@research.att.com>
 <01becd57$fb266980$0e01a8c0@eton.powernet.co.uk>
 <FEtnyE.HMG@research.att.com>
X-Trace: 13 Jul 1999 21:55:34 +0100, 195.60.5.125
Organization: Eton Computer Systems Ltd
Newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.security,comp.lang.javascript,comp.lang.delphi,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,alt.lang.delphi
Date: 1999-07-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Andrew Koenig <ark@research.att.com> wrote in article
<FEtnyE.HMG@research.att.com>...
> In article <01becd57$fb266980$0e01a8c0@eton.powernet.co.uk>,
> Richard Heathfield <complangc@eton.powernet.co.uk> wrote:
> > Andrew Koenig <ark@research.att.com> wrote in article
> 
> > Harvey's Law: For every 255 on-topic threads, there should be 1
off-topic
> > thread. In that spirit, I'll answer:
> 
> > X is now 7 and Y is now 3.
> 
> > It's analogous to the C code:
> 
> > int x = 7, y = 3;
> 
> > x * y;
> 
> > Well, okay, I'm guessing. So?  ;-)
> 
> Indeed, you're guessing -- and you're guessing wrong.
> 
> That's 0 for 2.  Still think Cobol is obvious?

Never said it was (or at least I don't think I did). But I never learned
COBOL. I spent three days trying to, but a COBOLler looked over my
shoulder, said "That's recursion! You can't do that in COBOL!". I asked why
not, since it clearly worked, and he went running into the DP manager's
office. I was then promptly - and firmly - given something else to do
instead.  ;-)


-- 
Richard Heathfield

The bug stops here.