volatile semantics

[Kai Henningsen]

gdr@integrable-solutions.net (Gabriel Dos Reis)  wrote on 17.07.05 in <m3ll46s81y.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>:

> Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
>
> | On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 00:05 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | > Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
> | >
> | > [...]
> | >
> | > | You make it sound like  the standard is crystal clear on this issue,
> | > and | everyone who disagrees with your viewpoint are just slimeballs
> | > trying to | get around the clear wording of the standard.
> | >
> | > I think you're profondly mistaken in your understanding of what I wrote.
> |
> | I read it another few times, and still looks the same to me.
> |
> | "The way I see it is that people who designed and wrote the standard
> | offer their view and interpretation of of they wrote and some people
> | are determined to offer a different interpretation so that they can
> | claim they are well-founded to apply  their transformations."
> |
> |
> | IE there are those whose opinion is right because "they wrote the
>
> see, here is where you added the transmutation.

Well, the more interesting part is the one after "and some". And I agree  
that it certainly reads rather insulting and confrontational - in fact, I  
can't see how else to interpret it.

Can't we keep the personal attacks out of these discussions?

MfG Kai