On Mar 13, 6:02 am, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote: | But none of that will happen if you start out knowingly doing it | wrong. Not necessarily. I call it "prototyping". I see no reason not to let it loose, as as long as you don't make any claims that it is believed to be done right. Yeah, that's a fair point. It may ultimately be more efficient to do it a bit "fast and loose"
On Mar 17, 9:33 am, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote: [snip a lot of reasonable stuff that I agree with] |> It used to be that you had no choice. A general-purpose whatever would |> be too bulky and slow to be an option. But now you have a choice. | | Precisely. The last sentence hits the nail on the head. You mean we should still have a choice between a highly optimized machine
David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> writes: On Mar 12, 6:30 pm, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote: | The best place to stop this chain is at the very first link. You | should need a damn good reason to do it wrong, not a good reason to do | it right. OTOH, maybe someone will look at that code, say "I can do better", and write it all over from scratch to do the same thing,
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:53:41 +0100 Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> wrote: | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net schrieb: | |> OK, so that works. It's a hack. What I'm curious about is why you could |> not just define select to match the library declaration? Are you trying |> to make this an intercept function that just passes on the arguments AND |> can work no matter which way the function is
