return-value policy question

[Kai Henningsen]

gdr@integrable-solutions.net (Gabriel Dos Reis)  wrote on 29.04.03 in <m3fzo1e4pa.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>:

> Nathan Myers <ncm-nospam@cantrip.org> writes:
>
> | On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 04:26:12PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | > [abuse]
> |
> | Gaby, your remarks did not address _any_ of the questions asked.
>
> I did address them by questioning the premisses you made.

Well, it sounded to me like you were questioning straw men you made up,  
not any premises of Nathan. Unless that was the premise that it should be  
possibly to discuss why code was written a certain way, and if another  
could or could not be an improvement.

If, of course, you think all code in gcc is perfect, and asking why is  
sacrilege ...

... then I cannot understand why you would ever change it. Yet you do.

> | If you would care to post something on topic, I would be happy
> | to read it.
>
> I did post something on topic.  You chosed not to answer them.

He asked for reasons of why some code had the form it had. And he asked if  
there were performance reasons for it.

You attacked him for preaching a certain coding style. He didn't preach.  
You did, however.

You attacked him for questioning a small inline routine, effectively  
claiming that there could never be any reason to doubt a small inline  
routine was anything but perfect. I don't believe you can possibly believe  
something utterly silly like that yourself.

When he *asked* after the performance, you claimed if he had seen anything  
bad, he should file a bug report.

> I'm skeptical that you'll get anywhere like that.

Well, you have certainly chosen the course to try to sabotage the  
conversation, instead of addressing the topic.

That mail sure read like a completely unprovoked attack.

MfG Kai