brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (02/12/91)
In article <1991Feb11.162041.9889@spool.cs.wisc.edu> quale@picard.cs.wisc.edu (Douglas E. Quale) writes: > Quote away, Dan. I'm not afraid of the truth. Very well, then, here goes. Followups to misc.test where they belong. Since Doug challenged my accusation that he's a liar, here's proof that he lied in the case that I said he did. I now question his academic integrity in all cases. Followups to misc.test where they belong. When Doug made his original statement, he was talking about ``a nested call to compose in a posting made by someone else some time ago.'' I pointed out that the call in question was improperly formed and nonsensical. In response to my statement, he said ``wtf are you talking about? square o square o square is perfectly sensible...'' He then requested that I explain what was nonsensical about his square o square o square examples. His implication was that I had said square o square o square was nonsensical. That implication is a lie. Doug even offered to ``let me off'' of my supposed mistake with just saying ``I was having a bad day.'' Well, I've given Doug a chance to retract his statements, and he hasn't. Here are the relevant quotes. Doug, in article <1991Feb7.150537.9257@spool.cs.wisc.edu>: > Compose has a simple mathematical definition, and since Dan is so proud > of his math, he surely knows that (f o g) o h = f o (g o h). > (Strangely he expressed confusion over a nested call to compose in a > posting made by someone else some time ago, but this is really quite > elementary.) Me, in article <25199:Feb801:33:1191@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>: > > Compose has a simple mathematical definition, and since Dan is so proud > > of his math, he surely knows that (f o g) o h = f o (g o h). > > (Strangely he expressed confusion over a nested call to compose in a > > posting made by someone else some time ago, but this is really quite > > elementary.) > That call was improperly formed and nonsensical as both a mathematical > expression and a C language expression. Doug, in article <1991Feb8.191014.6430@spool.cs.wisc.edu>: > >That call was improperly formed and nonsensical as both a mathematical > >expression and a C language expression. > Dan, wtf are you talking about?? > square o square o square > is perfectly sensible as a mathematical expression. The parens can be > omitted because functional composition is associative, but most > programming languages would prefer that you write [ etc. ] Doug, later in the same article: > And yes, Dan, I specifically request you to try explain what is nonsensical > about those expressions. I will be willing to let you off with simply > "I was having a bad day." (See? I was talking about the call someone posted a while back [which, by the way, brought up a much more interesting subject---handling polymorphism in C in practice---than anything Doug's said], and Doug is saying here that I don't know how to compose three functions in a row.) Me, in article <6828:Feb906:14:3491@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>: > > >That call was improperly formed and nonsensical as both a mathematical > > >expression and a C language expression. > > Dan, wtf are you talking about?? > You referred to the time when I expressed confusion over the supposed > meaning of somebody's nested compose() call. In case you don't remember, > the call in question tried to compose the compose function with an > integer function. Once again, that call was improperly formed and > nonsensical as both a mathematical expression and a C language > expression. Me, later in the same article: > [ about the square examples again ] > > And yes, Dan, I specifically request you to try explain what is nonsensical > > about those expressions. > I never said that those expressions were nonsensical. Your implication > is a lie, plain and simple. I doubt you have the integrity to review the > articles and apologize, but I'll give you one chance to do so before I > start quoting things in public. ---Dan