List:MySQL++« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Earl Miles Date:July 18 2005 5:56pm
Subject:Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followed
by 'long'is illegal ???
View as plain text  
Warren Young wrote:
> Earl Miles wrote:
> 
>> Ok, that's one of the more arrogant arguments I've ever read, 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you think of the argument, many people out there 
> hold it.  FWIW, the author of that would probably think it arrogant to 
> hold your position, too.  Point is, it's a touchy issue.

I haven't given my argument. If my _position_ is arrogant, that might be 
another thing; but either way, that information is unknown. Though I 
agree that the author of that probably would think that anything that 
disagrees with him is quite arrogant. He's already implied that everyone 
who disagrees with him is stupid, and arrogant is at least a step up 
from that.

I also disagree that it doesn't matter what I think of the argument; an 
illogical argument full of fallacies is just that. There is some 
credibility to the position, but the argument that author is making is 
insulting and unprofessional. It's also quite typical of the internet 
community in general.

>>  it
>> does convince me to no longer bother to delete the extra address when 
>> I hit reply-to, causing the author to get a double copy of the message.
> 
> ??  That's one of the things I _don't_ want.  Decide who you want to 
> respond to: the list, or to the original poster, but never both; and 
> prefer the list.

The argument you cite encourages that behavior, with this point: It 
violates the principle of least work because complicates the procedure 
for replying to messages.

The author says that 'reply-all' should be plenty good for mailing 
lists. Fair enough. (It's possible that I'm crankily disproving that 
point by pointing out that I must do more work to properly reply to the 
list, but if that's one of the whole reasons for the state of things as 
they are, I have no desire to cease doing something I feel I shouldn't 
have to do anyway).

To be honest, if I remember to erase the other address in my mailer, I 
probably will. I'm not very good at remembering that, and you've seen in 
  the past from the hordes of doubled-up messages from me. And I don't 
know of a mailer that'll do that function automatically. And it's unfair 
of you to criticize people for forgetting that, and especially unfair to 
criticize people who might not even realize this is happening. There is 
a certain expectation about mailing lists, thanks in part to the 
majority of bulk lists doing reply-to munging, and this list doesn't 
behave to that expectation.

Honestly, I do respect the position of not munging the reply-to, and 
there is definitely one point in that list I have no counter for and I 
must concede. I personally disagree as to the import of that point but I 
also respect that rating that import is a personal decision, and it's 
clear you rate that import higher than I do. I should re-iterate that 
I'm not actually trying to convince you to change it, but I am pointing 
out that there is a side-effect to the current setup, and that 
side-effect must be accepted as a consequence. Nothing more than that.
Thread
Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followed by 'long'is illegal ???np18 Jul
  • Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followedby 'long'is illegal ???Warren Young18 Jul
    • Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followedby 'long'is illegal ???Earl Miles18 Jul
      • Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followedby 'long'is illegal ???Warren Young18 Jul
        • Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followedby 'long'is illegal ???Warren Young18 Jul
        • Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followedby 'long'is illegal ???Earl Miles18 Jul
          • Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followedby 'long'is illegal ???Warren Young18 Jul
            • Re: Re : Re: VS 2003 / Mysql++ 1.7(or 2.0 b) =>__int64 followedby 'long'is illegal ???Earl Miles18 Jul
              • Re: reply-to discussionChris Frey21 Jul
                • Re: reply-to discussionEarl Miles21 Jul