1 |
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 08:13:49AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> x? ( build: a run: b ) *is* nested "conflicting". |
3 |
> |
4 |
> You're still failing to understand the point of labels parsing rules, |
5 |
> though: the point is to make uses like the above well defined and |
6 |
> consistent. |
7 |
|
8 |
I understand them just fine; you're just either very fucking daft, |
9 |
which I have a hard time believing, or lieing through your teeth |
10 |
(which fits a decade of behaviour including multiple suspensions for |
11 |
exactly that behaviour). |
12 |
|
13 |
Implicit labels context is build+run. Meaning the following |
14 |
> x? ( build: a run: b ) *is* nested "conflicting". |
15 |
|
16 |
is actually |
17 |
|
18 |
build+run x? ( build: a run: b ) |
19 |
|
20 |
Which isn't a nested conflict- subset, not conflict. |
21 |
|
22 |
You argue labels are required so people can do nested conflicts; |
23 |
meaning the following extreme example: |
24 |
|
25 |
run x? ( build: a test: b ) |
26 |
|
27 |
And as I nicely pointed out, /not a single fucking exheres/ does that. |
28 |
you've yet to pull out an example contradicting that analysis in |
29 |
addition. |
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
So... with that in mind- I'm doing two things; 1) can't force you |
33 |
back under a bridge, instead I'll do the killfile equivalent for a few |
34 |
weeks, 2) my original proposal if you kept being a tool seems |
35 |
appropriate: |
36 |
|
37 |
""" |
38 |
As said, you come up w/ real world examples, I'll include them; else |
39 |
persist and I'll just fold the academic wankery description of labels |
40 |
into the glep if you'd truly like me to (or you piss me off enough I |
41 |
do so to be a dick). |
42 |
""" |
43 |
|
44 |
What I truly love about that solution there is that it's both |
45 |
accurate, and if I play my cards right, I may be able to get a glep |
46 |
passed calling your proposal academic wankery; minimally, it'll be fun |
47 |
from my standpoint to try, so at least something came out of the last |
48 |
few emails from you. |
49 |
|
50 |
hugs and kisses- |
51 |
~harring |