From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-18 04:26:47
"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
note: Please read the end of the message first .
This is to some extent a demo of a 'debating style' that I would normally
for obvious reasons.
> > But surely you do. As I understand it you wish to make angle a dimension
> > your original Powerpoint presentation way back. :-)
> I don't know what that smiley means in this case,
(It means "is that not the case..? .am I not right..?".)
> but just to be
> No, really, I don't. My Powerpoint presentation was about
> illustrating the MPL,
Another interest... Mr Scabel makes great use of MPL. His code was
(as he pointed out), described as 'beautiful'...
surely not a technical term... no objection was raised :-) (am I not
>not about how to properly build a dimensional
> analysis library. Whether to represent angle as a dimension was an
> arbitrary choice that had to be made.
You are trivialising an important issue.
One that I have spent considerable time on. There is No arbitrariness about
my decision to
be very wary of constructing dimensionless physical-quantities. (C++ 3rd Ed
which also appear in your presentation...:-) (am I not right) )
> If I'd done it the other way,
The other way ? What is The other way? Please be more specific.
> you'd be claiming I had taken the opposite position.
The opposite position ? What is The opposite position?
(BTW I'm not too keen on being told what I would or would not be doing...)
Hmm.. this aggressive questioning appears to be a useful 'debating style'...
A winning style(winning ,sides, a war and aggresion... but not truth... the
first casualty) I am also
insinuating that your being aggressive when in fact I am,
A psychological trick.
It certainly can be used to annoy people :-)(am I not right)
(From where I sit Mr Landry appears to be being victimised.... (For myself I
preferred to 'walk away'... Many of Mr Scabels replies appear to say more
than they actually do on close inspection.)
An example of Mr Scabels 'debating style':
I personally feel like this discussion is largely tangential (and am
under the distinct
impression that Mr. Landry couldn't be bothered to give the SI web
site I referenced
his time). Whether or not your personal religion admits degrees,
radians, bunches of
grapes, dozens, or any other random existing or future tag is largely
And yet you raised no objection to this outburst. An apology to Mr Landry in
order here ?
BTW I am being obtuse on purpose... Only to illustrate a point.
I have a great respect for all the work , time and effort put in by you and
everyone at boost.
... but in this case I feel that consciously or unconsciously you are
treating Mr Landry unfairly.
Why not call a *ceasefire* :-) (joke) on the subject of angles.... Lets talk
MPL compile times.
Are we going to have to wait for the next generation of compilers before
poor Mr Scabels code will be of any potential use?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk