Re: [boost] Macros at namespace scope: trailing semicolon?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-18 10:44:49

"Paul Mensonides" <pmenso57_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> Anyway, this is getting quite silly.  For me this is a technical
>> issue, not a moral one, and I really don't want to get drawn further
>> into a philisophical discussion of responsibility.  I don't care all
>> that much whether the semicolon is included in the macro, and since
>> I am feeling overwhelmed and somewhat attacked I think I'll probably
>> do nothing.
>
> You feel attacked?

Indeed.  Most especially by the message I'm responding to.  

>> Ooooooo Kaaaaaay.
>
> I don't find this amusing; I find it insulting--even though it
> wasn't directed at me.

I'm really very sorry.  I do hope that Lucas understood it as it was
intended (bewilderment at how to connect the reply to my question) and
was not insulted.

>> In other words, everything else in service of wiping out some
>> people's silly misconceptions about what macros are.  Have I got
>> that right?
>
> I find this insulting and inflammatory.  The last sentence doesn't
> undo the what I perceive to be the tone of the first.

I'm very sorry.  It was probably a mistake to use an
assert-then-question formulation for what should have been a plain
question.

>> Ahem.
>
> I find this insulting as well.

I'm very sorry that it bothered you.  I will remember in the future
that you find "ahem" to be insulting and will avoid using it.  It
certainly was not intended as an insult.

>> I am only becoming more convinced to the contrary.
>
> Given the context of this statement, I find this snide.

Wow, I'm truly sorry that you thought that was snide.  It wasn't
intended to convey anything other than the un-embellished content of
its words: that my disagreement with the foregoing statement was
growing.

>> So, no spaces anywhere else on the line?  Try again.
>                                             ^^^^^^^^^
>
> Again, I find this insulting, especially because you know full well
> that it is easily fixable.  

Well, y'see: no I don't.  That was, in fact, my point.

> Of course some policies can be difficult to create; this is not an
> example of one of those policies 

Then it should be fairly easy for you to write the text of a less
heavy-handed policy that leaves no room for confusion and is easy to
follow.

> and is illustrative of nothing.

I understand your opinion.  I hope it's clear that I think it does
illustrate something.

>> But -- sincerely -- thank you anyway for going to the trouble to
>> respond to my query and make your thoughts on the issue clear.
>
> Here I believe that you may be sincere, but mostly that you're
> trying to smooth the waters.

Not that there's anything wrong with smoothing the waters, I hope.  I
was trying to bring the discussion to a peaceful conclusion, because
I'm out of time and, clearly, we're both becoming upset.  I don't
think it serves either of us or Boost as a whole to continue.

> At this point, I just find this to be a placating non-resolution to
> a personality clash that creeps up time and time again.

In that case, I think we should agree not to engage one another in
these forums.  There's no reason everyone else should have to suffer
because of the way our personalities turned out to interact.  What do
you say?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com