Re: what is encapsulation in an interface ?
Ken Wesson wrote:
If you can find and demonstrate a bug in the loop I posted,
Lew wrote:
We can do that, in the very next loop
Ken Wesson wrote:
So you claim. But I asked you to find one in the *same* loop. You know,
Thus restricting the conversation to a point I was not addressing. Why would
I respond to that? Just because you refuse to engage in what I'm saying
doesn't mean that what I said was invalid.
the little 59-character molehill you guys have made such a mountain out
of. After all it was only loops that small and clear that I was
suggesting using in lieu of obscure API calls that are nearly as long.
Yet another, pretty much equally short loop had bugs, thus proving the general
point that I was making.
Contrary to your claim upthread, I never said the 'for' loop was a bad idea,
only that one should be aware of the API and that it provides useful
alternatives - generally. I said that - generally - the API reduces risk
compared to hand-rolling, say, a "tight for loop". You proved that with your
own for loop. You keep distorting this point as though it were an attempt to
refute your claim that one trivial for loop was acceptable; it is not. Stop
intentionally twisting what someone else says in some misguided attempt to "win".
It stands that your second loop proved my general point, irrespective of your
trivial stand about one tiny loop that you miraculously didn't screw up. It
remains that your second loop beautifully illustrates my point, that
(generally speaking, just so you don't miss that point a sixth time) it's
risky to re-invent standard API calls. Thanks again.
As mentioned, I've plonked you already so your response is irrelevant. But
then, that won't be new.
Ken Wesson wrote:
I'll concede this point, otherwise not. :)
Lew wrote:
And why the disingenuous smileys, hm?
Ken Wesson wrote:
Why is calling people liars (without evidence, natch) apparently the
official pastime of cljp regulars?
What? Who called anyone a liar? Or did your "unusually large vocabulary"
fail you? Hm?
What general argument do you claim I was trying to invalidate? I think
I've already explained (several times!) that my argument applied
specifically to short loops and similarly short snippets only, and was in
And yet your other "similarly short snippet" had more flaws than lines of code?
no way intended to be interpreted as a general advocacy for replacing ALL
API calls with roll-your-own functionality.
Nor was my statement an advocacy to replace all roll-your-own with API calls,
as you seem to misrepresent it.
Buh-bye.
--
Lew
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.