Post #155,528
5/17/04 4:08:43 PM
|
Ironic, considering how much code *you* have shown...
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #155,584
5/17/04 5:58:54 PM
|
Wonder how the L Compiler is getting on?
Peter [link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire] [link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal] [link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #155,592
5/17/04 6:09:04 PM
|
It's Late.
Languishing lazily, L laggingly lollygags, laboriously lecturing Luddites learning less logical languages lacking Ledgerly Lovin'.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #155,594
5/17/04 6:10:43 PM
|
I was wondering where the L it was.
Peter [link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire] [link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal] [link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #155,623
5/17/04 9:55:24 PM
|
The P game
Pompus proofless oop peers proudly proclaiming parent parts perform by polymorphing practical proliferation of personal preferences produced by pointless practitioners of PHB pamphlet paradigms.
________________ oop.ismad.com
|
Post #155,630
5/17/04 10:42:48 PM
|
Re: The P game
Quixotic questioner querously quoths, "Quackery!" Queasy quibblers quiet Query Queen, quarry quits, quandary quelled.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #155,638
5/17/04 11:20:07 PM
|
you still have no evidence of betterment
That outta quell the poetry. Complaining about L is a red herring. Compare it to procedural Python if you have to.
________________ oop.ismad.com
|
Post #155,640
5/17/04 11:41:31 PM
|
No, you compare it.
OO Python is better. Nyah.
Still waiting on [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=155305|this], anyway.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #155,624
5/17/04 9:58:28 PM
|
The burden of evidence is on you
I don't claim my favorite approach is objectively better, only that it is not objectively worse. If you claim that A is objectively better than B, then the burden of proof is on you to show that. It's that simple.
________________ oop.ismad.com
|
Post #155,645
5/18/04 1:38:46 AM
|
And what claim did I ever make?
Keep your posters straight, please.
Thanks, Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|