Victor A. Wagner, Jr. wrote:
At Tuesday 2004-02-10 08:45, you wrote:
David Bergman wrote:
There seem to be two schools here: (1) the Standardists, striving to follow The Standard verbatim, and (2) the Pragmatics, trying to see how different mechanisms would affect their daily struggles with real problems.
Sorry, that's nonsense.
with exactly (no more, no less) respect than you showed David
Peter, I think you simply "don't get it".
Yes, it does seem so. I honestly don't get it, "it" being the relationship between the distinction between Standardists and Pragmatics and the thread discussion.
Nobody in the world is (1), and the only reason to bring up this hypothetical school division is as an excuse to write broken code that happens to work today.
your definition of "broken" apparently doesn't match mine. I wish to be able to view a thread invocation as a delayed (possibly remote) procedure call, which _may_ return something (including an exception). Insistance that I cannot do that seems pointlessly pedantic? You haven't shown _why_ it's pointless.
I don't need to. I haven't claimed that it's pointless, "it" being the ability to view the thread invocation as a delayed procedure call.
I say it's a useful technique, you say it's rubbish.
No, I did not.
Adopting what I want in this instance allows me to work and does _nothing_ to what you do. Adopting your point of view, prevents me from implementing some solutions.
I don't think that my point of view is what you think it is.