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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,60e2922351e0e780 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-09 23:48:40 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!adsl-213-200-246-247.cybernet.CH!not-for-mail From: Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Clause "with and use" Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:47:08 +0100 Organization: JeLlyFish software Message-ID: References: <3FA50083.10709@noplace.com> <3FA777E9.4030605@noplace.com> Reply-To: v.hoefler@acm.org NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-213-200-246-247.cybernet.ch (213.200.246.247) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1068450518 50271625 213.200.246.247 (16 [175126]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2287 Date: 2003-11-10T08:47:08+01:00 List-Id: Russ wrote: >Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler wrote in message = news:... > >If you honestly find "+=3D" to be "unreadable," then I'd say that, yes, >you are indeed an idiot. Ok. So we have clarified this. >I certainly would never hire a programmer who >has to grapple with the meaning of "+=3D". No problem. I don't take jobs where the job description says I have to use "+=3D" under all circumstances. >work to do. Would you hire such a person? If so, I can't imagine how >you could get any significant amount of work done. =46unny. Have you perhaps noticed that the languages I am using mostly, simply don't have a "+=3D"? >Having said that, I don't think >for a second that anyone here *really* has trouble understanding "+=3D". Precisely. I *know* what it is supposed to mean. That doesn't mean, I am getting much excited from this so that I would like to (mis)use it over and over again. >That means that I don't really consider you idiots, I am just baffled >as to why you insist on portraying yourselves as such. Now, if you >quote me on this, please keep this entire paragraph intact. Is that ok so? Does my quoting satisfy you needs? BTW, someone who can't tell the difference between "I consider a cosntruct unreadable" and "I can't understand the construct" must be an idiot, too, because these are truly different things. So this obviously applies to you, Russ. Or to say it in a different way: "I consider C unreadable", doesn't mean, that I can't understand it. Got it, dumbass? Vinzent.