Obviously that would not
stop Arne from continuing to tell other people dangerously incorrect
things about me. Indeed, it would leave him to do so unopposed,
precisely the opposite of the correct outcome.
[non-sequitur]
(e-mail address removed) wrote:
[homicidal theats deleted]
[threats of sexual assault deleted]](e-mail address removed) wrote:
[threats of sexual assault deleted]]
That's it. Now I'm contacting the police.
Captain said:Many Klingon warriors would drop everything to hunt you down and kill
you for making such a vicious accusation about them in public!
I don't respond well to threats, petaQ.
[numerous suspected insults deleted]
Only half of it.
Nearly all of it, given it's rarely custom-subclasses.
People who write code are just as important as those who use it.
That does not make sense. Both clients and subclassers are "people who
write code".
But you thus show that you realize that there would be a need for
change if the contract changed.
Qagh Sopbe'.
Huh?
Entirely beside the point, given how little change.And you don't know how easy it would be to update it,
since the implementation to change will itself be used by other code,
which then will need to change
QoH! It won't, since changing the implementation keySet return type to
SortedSet won't force change on clients of that code, and it's
unlikely for the implementation to be itself subclassed, and even more
unlikely for such a subclass to be overriding the superclass
implementation of keySet.
thus requiring unit tests, regression tests,
deployment to a zillion production sites, possible new bugs to fix,
delays to other more critical feature improvements or repair, and a
whole lot of cost to Java projects overall.Tojo'Qa'!
Huh?
What a ridiculous slippery slope argument.
sorted. You'd just need to implement first, last, subSet, tailSet, and
headSet, and you could make all of those (in presumably an anonymous
inner class of your map) punt to MySortedMap.this.firstKey(), lastKey
(), subMap(x,y).keySet(), tailMap(x).keySet(), and headMap(y).keySet
().It would take all of five minutes.
[calls me a liar]
Grrr! TlhIngan quv DatIchDI' Seng yIghuH!
If anyone here is a lying petaQ ... well, let's just say that it is
not I!
VeQ! There are probably only a handful, if that.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.14.135.55
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:10:23 GMT, Captain Koloth Derbyshite
(FNVW, is it possible to nominate Paul "Two Socks" Derbyshire for the
Goofy Azzed Babboon for this very old post?)
Paul G. Derbyshire said:[silent followup-to denied
And why are you crossposting your kookfeud
with "Derbyshire" to comp.lang.java.programmer<SLAP>
*You*<SLAP>
[silent followup-to denied
Restored; you've already stunk up that group enough<SLAP!>
Paul G. Derbyshite, stop speaking about yourself in the third person.
Shut up, Paul Derbyshite; you are not the FNVW.
But I *am* an FNVW (two of three)
LMFAO. Indeed you are 2 of the 3 socks pretending,Socky.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler said:NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.14.135.55
Captain Koloth wrote:
That IS the contract.
Only half of it.
Nearly all of it, given it's rarely custom-subclasses.
People who write code are just as important as those who use it.
That does not make sense. Both clients and subclassers are "people who
write code".
But the contract also exists for the SortedMap implementer, and it
defines what he's allowed to do. If i wrote a SortedMap under 1.4
that returned a key set that wasn't a SortedSet, which was
perfectly legal at that point, i would take a very dim view of a
change to the definitionof SortedMap in 1.5 that made it illegal.
Why? It would be very easy to update it, since the backing Map is
But you thus show that you realize that there would be a need for
change if the contract changed.
Qagh Sopbe'.
Huh?
Entirely beside the point, given how little change.And you don't know how easy it would be to update it,
since the implementation to change will itself be used by other code,
which then will need to change
QoH! It won't, since changing the implementation keySet return type to
SortedSet won't force change on clients of that code, and it's
unlikely for the implementation to be itself subclassed, and even more
unlikely for such a subclass to be overriding the superclass
implementation of keySet.
thus requiring unit tests, regression tests,
deployment to a zillion production sites, possible new bugs to fix,
delays to other more critical feature improvements or repair, and a
whole lot of cost to Java projects overall.
Tojo'Qa'!
Huh?
What a ridiculous slippery slope argument.
sorted. You'd just need to implement first, last, subSet, tailSet,
and headSet, and you could make all of those (in presumably an
anonymous inner class of your map) punt to
MySortedMap.this.firstKey(), lastKey (), subMap(x,y).keySet(),
tailMap(x).keySet(), and headMap(y).keySet ().
It would take all of five minutes.
[calls me a liar]
Grrr! TlhIngan quv DatIchDI' Seng yIghuH!
Paula, are you off your meds?
If anyone here is a lying petaQ ... well, let's just say that it is
not I!
Also, how common are third-party implementations of SortedMap,
really?
At the time the contract was written, there weren't any. Having
written the contract, Java must not assume that continues to pertain.
There could be thousands of such implementations by now.
VeQ! There are probably only a handful, if that.
This doesn't look like you're winning at all, for ****'s sake.
(FNVW, is it possible to nominate Paul "Two Socks" Derbyshire for the
Goofy Azzed Babboon for this very old post?)
Yes.
According to the award description Goofy Azzed Babboon is for
kooks past and present.
Goofy Azzed Babboon
This award commemorates Kookistic achievement in the linguistic arts. Of
any language. To be awarded for categorical instances of such
achievement, but if a fully separate category of it is exhibited by said
Kook then they can win it more than once. There is no statute of
limitations here; one should
* award net.kooks of the past as well as the present*.
Linguistic butchering is, we believe, a demonstrably proven Kook Art.
If the person's inability to
use language comes from their inexperience with it they do not qualify.
Kooky language must come from Kooky thought.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler said:NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.14.135.55
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:10:23 GMT, Captain Koloth Derbyshite
Captain Koloth wrote:
That IS the contract.
Only half of it.
Nearly all of it, given it's rarely custom-subclasses.
People who write code are just as important as those who use it.
That does not make sense. Both clients and subclassers are "people who
write code".
But the contract also exists for the SortedMap implementer, and it
defines what he's allowed to do. If i wrote a SortedMap under 1.4
that returned a key set that wasn't a SortedSet, which was
perfectly legal at that point, i would take a very dim view of a
change to the definitionof SortedMap in 1.5 that made it illegal.
Why? It would be very easy to update it, since the backing Map is
But you thus show that you realize that there would be a need for
change if the contract changed.
Qagh Sopbe'.
Huh?
Entirely beside the point, given how little change.
And you don't know how easy it would be to update it,
since the implementation to change will itself be used by other code,
which then will need to change
QoH! It won't, since changing the implementation keySet return type to
SortedSet won't force change on clients of that code, and it's
unlikely for the implementation to be itself subclassed, and even more
unlikely for such a subclass to be overriding the superclass
implementation of keySet.
thus requiring unit tests, regression tests,
deployment to a zillion production sites, possible new bugs to fix,
delays to other more critical feature improvements or repair, and a
whole lot of cost to Java projects overall.
Tojo'Qa'!
Huh?
What a ridiculous slippery slope argument.
sorted. You'd just need to implement first, last, subSet, tailSet,
and headSet, and you could make all of those (in presumably an
anonymous inner class of your map) punt to
MySortedMap.this.firstKey(), lastKey (), subMap(x,y).keySet(),
tailMap(x).keySet(), and headMap(y).keySet ().
It would take all of five minutes.
[calls me a liar]
Grrr! TlhIngan quv DatIchDI' Seng yIghuH!
Paula, are you off your meds?
If anyone here is a lying petaQ ... well, let's just say that it is
not I!
Also, how common are third-party implementations of SortedMap,
really?
At the time the contract was written, there weren't any. Having
written the contract, Java must not assume that continues to pertain.
There could be thousands of such implementations by now.
VeQ! There are probably only a handful, if that.
This doesn't look like you're winning at all, for ****'s sake.
(FNVW, is it possible to nominate Paul "Two Socks" Derbyshire for the
Goofy Azzed Babboon for this very old post?)
Yes.
Thank you, Mister Wrangler.
According to the award description Goofy Azzed Babboon is for
kooks past and present.
Goofy Azzed Babboon
This award commemorates Kookistic achievement in the linguistic arts. Of
any language. To be awarded for categorical instances of such
achievement, but if a fully separate category of it is exhibited by said
Kook then they can win it more than once. There is no statute of
limitations here; one should
* award net.kooks of the past as well as the present*.
Linguistic butchering is, we believe, a demonstrably proven Kook Art.
If the person's inability to
use language comes from their inexperience with it they do not qualify.
Kooky language must come from Kooky thought.
And if kooky thoughts were dollars, Paula Derbyshite would be richer than
Bill Gates.
In recognition of his linguistic butchering while using his "Captain Koloth"
sockpuppet, and there being no statute of limitations for the award, I hereby
nominate Paul G. "Two-Socks" Derbyshire for the official alt.usenet kook
Goofy Azzed Babboon Award. Seconds?
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler said:NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.14.135.55
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:10:23 GMT, Captain Koloth Derbyshite
Captain Koloth wrote:
That IS the contract.
Only half of it.
Nearly all of it, given it's rarely custom-subclasses.
 People who write code are just as important as those who use it.
That does not make sense. Both clients and subclassers are "people who
write code".
But the contract also exists for the SortedMap implementer, and it
defines what he's allowed to do. If i wrote a SortedMap under 1.4
that returned a key set that wasn't a SortedSet, which was
perfectly legal at that point, i would take a very dim view of a
change to the definitionof SortedMap in 1.5 that made it illegal.
Why? It would be very easy to update it, since the backing Map is
But you thus show that you realize that there would be a need for
change if the contract changed.
Qagh Sopbe'.
Huh?
Entirely beside the point, given how little change.
 And you don't know how easy it would be to update it,
since the implementation to change will itself be used by other code,
which then will need to change
QoH! It won't, since changing the implementation keySet return type to
SortedSet won't force change on clients of that code, and it's
unlikely for the implementation to be itself subclassed, and even more
unlikely for such a subclass to be overriding the superclass
implementation of keySet.
thus requiring unit tests, regression tests,
deployment to a zillion production sites, possible new bugs to fix,
delays to other more critical feature improvements or repair, and a
whole lot of cost to Java projects overall.
Tojo'Qa'!
Huh?
What a ridiculous slippery slope argument.
sorted. You'd just need to implement first, last, subSet, tailSet,
and headSet, and you could make all of those (in presumably an
anonymous inner class of your map) punt to
MySortedMap.this.firstKey(), lastKey (), subMap(x,y).keySet(),
tailMap(x).keySet(), and headMap(y).keySet ().
It would take all of five minutes.
[calls me a liar]
Grrr! TlhIngan quv DatIchDI' Seng yIghuH!
Paula, are you off your meds?
If anyone here is a lying petaQ ... well, let's just say that it is
not I!
Also, how common are third-party implementations of SortedMap,
really?
At the time the contract was written, there weren't any. Â Having
written the contract, Java must not assume that continues to pertain.
 There could be thousands of such implementations by now.
VeQ! There are probably only a handful, if that.
This doesn't look like you're winning at all, for ****'s sake.
(FNVW, is it possible to nominate Paul "Two Socks" Derbyshire for the
Goofy Azzed Babboon for this very old post?)
Yes.
Thank you, Mister Wrangler.
According to the award description Goofy Azzed Babboon is for
kooks past and present.
Goofy Azzed Babboon
This award commemorates Kookistic achievement in the linguistic arts. Of
any language. To be awarded for categorical instances of such
achievement, but if a fully separate category of it is exhibited by said
Kook then they can win it more than once. There is no statute of
limitations here; one should
* award net.kooks of the past as well as the present*.
Linguistic butchering is, we believe, a demonstrably proven Kook Art.
If the person's inability to
use language comes from their inexperience with it they do not qualify.
Kooky language must come from Kooky thought.
And if kooky thoughts were dollars, Paula Derbyshite would be richer than
Bill Gates.
In recognition of his linguistic butchering while using his "Captain Koloth"
sockpuppet, and there being no statute of limitations for the award, I hereby
nominate Paul G. "Two-Socks" Derbyshire for the official alt.usenet kook
Goofy Azzed Babboon Award. Seconds?
Nomination accepted.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler said:Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler said:NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.14.135.55
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:10:23 GMT, Captain Koloth Derbyshite
Captain Koloth wrote:
That IS the contract.
Only half of it.
Nearly all of it, given it's rarely custom-subclasses.
People who write code are just as important as those who use it.
That does not make sense. Both clients and subclassers are "people
who write code".
But the contract also exists for the SortedMap implementer, and
it defines what he's allowed to do. If i wrote a SortedMap under
1.4 that returned a key set that wasn't a SortedSet, which was
perfectly legal at that point, i would take a very dim view of a
change to the definitionof SortedMap in 1.5 that made it
illegal.
Why? It would be very easy to update it, since the backing Map is
But you thus show that you realize that there would be a need for
change if the contract changed.
Qagh Sopbe'.
Huh?
Entirely beside the point, given how little change.
And you don't know how easy it would be to update it,
since the implementation to change will itself be used by other
code, which then will need to change
QoH! It won't, since changing the implementation keySet return type
to SortedSet won't force change on clients of that code, and it's
unlikely for the implementation to be itself subclassed, and even
more unlikely for such a subclass to be overriding the superclass
implementation of keySet.
thus requiring unit tests, regression tests,
deployment to a zillion production sites, possible new bugs to fix,
delays to other more critical feature improvements or repair, and a
whole lot of cost to Java projects overall.
Tojo'Qa'!
Huh?
What a ridiculous slippery slope argument.
sorted. You'd just need to implement first, last, subSet,
tailSet, and headSet, and you could make all of those (in
presumably an anonymous inner class of your map) punt to
MySortedMap.this.firstKey(), lastKey (), subMap(x,y).keySet(),
tailMap(x).keySet(), and headMap(y).keySet ().
It would take all of five minutes.
[calls me a liar]
Grrr! TlhIngan quv DatIchDI' Seng yIghuH!
Paula, are you off your meds?
If anyone here is a lying petaQ ... well, let's just say that it is
not I!
Also, how common are third-party implementations of SortedMap,
really?
At the time the contract was written, there weren't any. Having
written the contract, Java must not assume that continues to
pertain. There could be thousands of such implementations by now.
VeQ! There are probably only a handful, if that.
This doesn't look like you're winning at all, for ****'s sake.
(FNVW, is it possible to nominate Paul "Two Socks" Derbyshire for the
Goofy Azzed Babboon for this very old post?)
Yes.
Thank you, Mister Wrangler.
According to the award description Goofy Azzed Babboon is for
kooks past and present.
Goofy Azzed Babboon
This award commemorates Kookistic achievement in the linguistic arts.
Of any language. To be awarded for categorical instances of such
achievement, but if a fully separate category of it is exhibited by
said Kook then they can win it more than once. There is no statute of
limitations here; one should
* award net.kooks of the past as well as the present*.
Linguistic butchering is, we believe, a demonstrably proven Kook Art.
If the person's inability to
use language comes from their inexperience with it they do not
qualify. Kooky language must come from Kooky thought.
And if kooky thoughts were dollars, Paula Derbyshite would be richer
than Bill Gates.
In recognition of his linguistic butchering while using his "Captain
Koloth" sockpuppet, and there being no statute of limitations for the
award, I hereby nominate Paul G. "Two-Socks" Derbyshire for the official
alt.usenet kook Goofy Azzed Babboon Award. Seconds?
Nomination accepted.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.