[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Philosophical tail-recursion question

   > Somehow this turned into a semi-private conversation.  I
   > apologize if I have failed to cc: an interested party.

   I suggest we follow up to comp.lang.scheme being sure to add
   appropriate context for a further discussion.

I intentionally moved this from a public forum to a private forum. I don't
like it when email discussions contain insults. And I like it less when such
insults are promulgated through a larger public forum like usenet.

   that was ok so long as well-informed readers of the documents knew what was
   meant or could learn what was meant by consulting sources that
   were referenced by the standards.

   The role of the standard is to provide enough technical
   guidance so that men and women of good will can base their
   discussion on technical issues.  It does not need to be so
   airtight as to rule out perverse interpretations.

At times, I may misunderstand things, at times my statements may be incorrect,
I may have failed to adequately explain an insight, or we may have differing
opinions. But the innuendo in the above, and through much of the rest of the
article that contained the above, that I am uninformed, that I don't learn,
that I don't consult sources, that I am not of good will, that my discussion
is not about technical issues, or that I make perverse interpretations is out
of line.

I will refrain from any further technical discussion until there is general
agreement to keep the demeanor of the discussion impersonal.

    Jeff (http://www.neci.nj.nec.com/homepages/qobi.html)