Mon Sep 19 14:38:41 CEST 2016
On 9/19/16 5:00 AM, Roger Price wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Loïc Hoguin wrote:
>> There was obviously no ill intent in that message. ...
>> Anyway I'm probably not the only one who thinks you're doing a
>> fantastic job answering the many questions that are posted on this
>> list, in great details, regardless of how trivial they are or how
>> confused the poster is.
>> On 09/19/2016 07:05 AM, wrote:
>>> I have been taken to task in private e-mail by someone
>>> who detected in my response to the "list comprehension puzzle"
>>> both "aggressive sarcasm" and "undisguised contempt".
> When citing the Erlang reference manual section 3.12 is seen as
> "aggressive sarcasm" and "undisguised contempt" then this must be the
> snowflake generation. Perhaps section 3.12 needs a trigger warning :-)
> A loud and enthusiastic "Thankyou" to ROK for many excellent postings.
> I keep a stash of some which I think are outstanding.
p.s. Personally, I'm a big fan of "aggressive sarcasm" - sometimes it's
more than appropriate. :-)
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
More information about the erlang-questions