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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f03f7958fe713ed1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)
Subject: Re: language standards
Date: 1997/03/07
Message-ID: <JSA.97Mar7151431@alexandria>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 223859383
Distribution: world
References: <dewar.857664647@merv>
Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.857664647@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> <<nope, it is not what I am saying (by any stretch of misinterpretation)>>
> 
> Jon said
> 
> <<Actually, on the face of it - it's precisely what you were saying.>>
> 
> Robert replies
> 
> nonsense! I guess you can stretch the art of wishful misinterpretation
> beyond any boundary I can imagine. Of course I did not say that there
> should not be any language standards. You cannot find any statement
> to that effect. You think you can prove it using some faulty
> syllogism based on your own ideas, i.e. you are saying something like

Let's have a simple recap, not your silly, phony, strawman syllogism:

Here is the exact exchange (from good ol' dejanews):

---------
Robert quotes:
<<<
Robert:
> to even considering elaborate pattern matching stuff, there are too
> many ways to approach this problem to decree one as standard. Similarly
> for GC, it is clear that there would be no consensus on this addition.

Jon:
There are "too many" ways to approach a language design to decree any
as standard.  Sounds pretty silly, eh?>>
>>>

And then replies:
Not to anyone with any experience in language standardization.
---------

Now, on the face of it, your sentence here says that it is not silly
to say that there are "too many" ways to approach a language design to
decree any as standard.  Tell us, what other possible meaning could
there be?

Now, you go on _later_ to _introduce_ the _new_ requirement of "and no
agreement".  Of course, you also go on to simply apriori _decree_ that
there could _not possibly_ be any agreement.  I suppose that's how you
got confused about it all.

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com