Re: [boost] Re: Semaphores?

From: Darin Adler (darin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-24 12:08:06

On Friday, May 24, 2002, at 08:59 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>>
>> To make this post more than just list pollution,
>                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Is this your 'IMHO' or rather *THE DWA-MODERATOR'S VERDICT*?

It's David's responsibility as a moderator to mention things like this.

I agree with his original comments about your message, and as another of the moderators, it's my responsibility to say so here.

A list of links simply isn't a polite-enough or friendly-enough form of communication to add to the discussion here on the list and fit our community standards. Adding a few words would have made all the difference.

>> you could add a short note
>> which says something like "this has all been discussed before, and if you
>> look at the history you'll find that semaphores aren't really better...[or
>> whatever the conclusion was]".
>
> Y'know, I really prefer to let folks do their own "conclusions",
> *themselves*, I mean. I always try {at the 'beginning', at least}
> to restrict the amount of my interference into their processes of
> doing it by simply posting a link/quote or two (well, sometimes
> more than TWO, and, quite often, with some 'challenging'-short-
> comment/annotation), which, as I think/hope could help them to
> come to THEIR conclusions (which perhaps could even differ
> *radically* from my own conclusions -- 'who knows'). Some extra
> amount mental activity/energy spent absorbing the stuff should
> NOT really hurt anyone, I think. And, of course, one could always
> just ignore it on the grounds of 'way too implicit'/'unclear'/
> I-just-hate-<NOT>annotated-links/pure-google/etc.! ;-) ;-)

Please be polite and do your best to follow the guidelines the moderators set down, even if they aren't the same as your own personal preferences.

     -- Darin