On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 07:01:46 +1100, Matthew <matthew@hat.stlsoft.dot.org> wrote:

>
> "Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dopbll$2vsg$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Matthew wrote:
>> > They're all part of recls.
>> <snip top of upside-down reply>
>>
>> They are operations pertaining to an individual file, not to the
>> specific process of recursing through a directory structure to find a
>> file.  As such, they ought to be in std.file.  I refer you back to
>> "Simple Operations should be Simple".
>
> What's with the unnecessary and off-point smart-arsery? Did you not get any
> nice Christmas presents?

Sorry Matthew but I'm sure you're out-of-line. Before jumping up and down on somebody, learn their style etc... but you know all that already, so that's why I guess you are under some stress right now. I can't understand your rash, unnecessary, and off-point smart-arsery any other way.

> So you think those ops should be std.file? So do I. Well done. Aren't you a
> helpful little genius!

Well actually, Stewart is. When I read your reply, my first thought was along the lines "Hmmmm some more of Matthew's self promotion" - not that that bothers me, mind you.

> But you see I was trying to help jicman to acheive
> his intent _right now_, given the current state of the libs,

That wasn't very clear to me either, Matt. It came across as "sour grapes" that your recls is *still* not incorporated into DMD yet.

> whereas your
> point is, ... hmmm, well I'm a little lost there. Perhaps you can enlighten
> us?

Stewart tends to be 'to the point' and is not afraid to be bold. As he says "they ought to be in std.file". It wasn't personal and certainly not as hostile as you assumed.

> Nice to see this NG's standard of wasted hot air is just as it was when I
> last lost the will to live here.

This NG is a breath of fresh air compared to other forums. Stewart doesn't contribute to the wasted, nor hot, air here. I frequently disagree with his style but very rarely on its content.

> Sheesh. See you all in 2007!

Can you bother to lower yourself to the plebian level?

-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia

Matthew says...
>
>
>"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:dopbll$2vsg$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Matthew wrote:
>> > They're all part of recls.
>> <snip top of upside-down reply>
>>
>> They are operations pertaining to an individual file, not to the specific process of recursing through a directory structure to find a file.  As such, they ought to be in std.file.  I refer you back to "Simple Operations should be Simple".
>
>What's with the unnecessary and off-point smart-arsery? Did you not get any nice Christmas presents?
>
>So you think those ops should be std.file? So do I. Well done. Aren't you a helpful little genius! But you see I was trying to help jicman to acheive his intent _right now_, given the current state of the libs, whereas your point is, ... hmmm, well I'm a little lost there. Perhaps you can enlighten us?

Matthew, I appreciated and appreciate the help.  Thanks. :-)

>Nice to see this NG's standard of wasted hot air is just as it was when I last lost the will to live here.
>
>Sheesh. See you all in 2007!
>
>
>

Derek Parnell wrote:Matthew wrote:
>>> They're all part of recls.
>>> <snip top of upside-down reply>

> Sorry Matthew but I'm sure you're out-of-line. Before jumping up and down on somebody, learn their style etc... but you know all that already, so that's why I guess you are under some stress right now. I can't understand your rash, unnecessary, and off-point smart-arsery any 

I believe Matthew was a little defensive when it appeared Stewart was ticked because Matt posted upside down.

Please understand I am not defending Matthew on this, just pointing something out that you may have missed...

Chris