On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 05:43:30AM +0900, Jacob Fugal wrote:
> On 8/1/06, Chad Perrin <perrin / apotheon.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 05:19:38AM +0900, Jacob Fugal wrote:
> >> Actually, if you go back and read David's post [ruby-talk:205331],
> >> which is the first reference to hair splitting in this thread, you'll
> >> see that he clearly believes both of the first two examples to be
> >> closures. When he mentions hair splitting, it's directly in relation
> >> to the third form -- an unconverted (yielded to) block.
> >
> >You were right, up to the point where you said "When he mentions hair
> >splitting".  The problem at that point that prompted him to mention hair
> >splitting was the fact that I was balking at defining that second
> >example as a "closure".  I've now come to the conclusion that the second
> >example is a closure according to at least some, valid from a given
> >perspective, interpretations of the meaning of "closure".  Thus, I quit
> >splitting that hair and said "Okay, so I'll stipulate that the second
> >example can be called a closure, depending on interpretation."
> 
> Ok, I've tried my bit at patience. I am certain now that you are being
> intentionally stubborn and difficult.

You're wrong, and you can go screw yourself if you're going to start
assuming malicious intent on my part just because you refuse to actually
discuss the same topic as me.  I've assumed good faith all along: you
can do the same, or you can talk to someone else, because assuming bad
faith on my part is a quick way to get >/dev/null attached to your name.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"A script is what you give the actors.  A program
is what you give the audience." - Larry Wall