Re: Why we should (not?) have closures after all
- From: Andreas Leitgeb <avl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 Oct 2008 18:51:57 GMT
Lew <lew@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
It's not that it surprises me, but it must surprise Lew likeI wonder why you thought I doubted your claims.
hell, based on that he doubted my claims.
In my eyes, my claim was so f***ing obvious, that
asking for a proof indicated (to me) just about the
same level of blindness as actually doubting it.
You may of course have had other reasons to ask for it,
like psychological experiments with me ("can I talk him
into doing a task that will take him some time"), or real
curiosity about the exact figures, or curiosity about
which pitfalls I'd fall victim to when trying to measure,
or whatever else.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why we should (not?) have closures after all
- From: Mike Schilling
- Re: Why we should (not?) have closures after all
- From: Lew
- Re: Why we should (not?) have closures after all
- References:
- Why we should have closures after all
- From: Lew
- Re: Why we should (not?) have closures after all
- From: Andreas Leitgeb
- Re: Why we should (not?) have closures after all
- From: Robert Klemme
- Re: Why we should (not?) have closures after all
- From: Andreas Leitgeb
- Re: Why we should (not?) have closures after all
- From: Hendrik Maryns
- Re: Why we should (not?) have closures after all
- From: Andreas Leitgeb
- Re: Why we should (not?) have closures after all
- From: Lew
- Re: Why we should (not?) have closures after all
- From: Andreas Leitgeb
- Re: Why we should (not?) have closures after all
- From: Lew
- Why we should have closures after all
- Prev by Date: Re: What a pity that Java not Include Operators overloading,Wake up
- Next by Date: Re: Why we should (not?) have closures after all
- Previous by thread: Re: Why we should (not?) have closures after all
- Next by thread: Re: Why we should (not?) have closures after all
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|