From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-18 12:24:41
On Tue, 18 May 2004 13:06:12 -0400 (EDT), Rob Stewart wrote
> > I don't feel particularly inclined to respond to your questions or concerns
> > until you invest at least the minimum of effort required to take a look at
> > the code and read the other posts related to this topic.
> Fine. You can justify your belligerence all you like. I thought
> I made some cogent arguments, despite the possibility of being
> slightly off course. A simple course correction from you would
> have sufficed.
I agree with Rob here, dismissing his point of view this this way was out of
line. Ironically, Rob was playing the role of the naive user since he hadn't
looked at the code. Anyway, you could simply post a small code snippet in your
email that illustrated why your point of view without expecting him to keep up
with the latest revision. Frankly, I hadn't even looked at the test_cv stuff
until this morning when I was trying to make the conversation more concrete.
>Since you prefer to attack rather than engage me,
> I'll leave the discussion to you and Jeff.
Please don't do that. All that will assure is an inferior design -- one that
might not stand up to a review...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk