Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #6485

Re: Passing a Method Name to a Method, Redux

Show all headers | View raw

On 7/23/2011 3:14 PM, lewbloch wrote:
> lewbloch wrote:
>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> lewbloch wrote:
>>>> Ain't the FM (of "RTFM") a marvel? Amazing what one can learn by
>>>> reading the documentation!
>>
>>> Is is great reading the FM.
>>>
>>> In this case the FM (at least not in what you quote) does not cover
>>> the topic of discussion - whether it is a monolithic executable
>>> or a series of executables.
>>
>> A difference that makes no difference is no difference.
>
> But for completeness:

[links to cpp docs]

> This can be learned from reading the frakkin' manual as suggested!
> Does everyone have to be spoonfed everything?
>
> The idea here is to follow the general principle, e.g., RTFM!, so that
> one can be independently brilliant.  Just because I only led you to
> the door and didn't open it and spread roses in your path doesn't make
> my advice bad.  I anticipate that any real programmer will take the
> hint and do their own homework, once shown where they can look.
>
> For example, the poster who whined about wanting a standalone
> preprocessor could have easily looked up those links posted here,
> given the hint that it was at least possible that the indicated
> documentation would yield that data.  For that matter, so could you
> have.  It would have been far more helpful for you to post the
> additional data to help that whiner than to speciously complain that I
> didn't.  Don't you want to be helpful?
>
> But in the end, monolithic or separate, they get the ability to run
> the preprocessor on its own EVEN WERE IT PART OF A MONOLITHIC
> PROGRAM!  Why wouldn't that suit, hm?

Hm.

This little subthread is not about the OP's problem, but about
whether GCC is monolitic.

Just saying RTFM is fine.

Saying RTFM and providing relevant information from the FM for
the discussion is fine.

I can not really see any point in saying RTFM and providing
irrelevant information from the FM.

And I don't think that is requiring to be spoonfed.

Arne

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Passing a Method Name to a Method, Redux Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 20:43 -0400
  Re: Passing a Method Name to a Method, Redux Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-22 12:35 -0700
    Re: Passing a Method Name to a Method, Redux Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-22 13:09 -0700
    Re: Passing a Method Name to a Method, Redux lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-22 13:35 -0700
    Re: Passing a Method Name to a Method, Redux Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-22 16:53 -0400
    Re: Passing a Method Name to a Method, Redux Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-07-23 13:19 +0000
      Re: Passing a Method Name to a Method, Redux Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-23 11:19 -0400
        Re: Passing a Method Name to a Method, Redux lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-23 09:20 -0700
          Re: Passing a Method Name to a Method, Redux Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-23 13:33 -0400
            Re: Passing a Method Name to a Method, Redux lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-23 11:43 -0700
              Re: Passing a Method Name to a Method, Redux lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-23 12:14 -0700
                Re: Passing a Method Name to a Method, Redux Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-23 19:19 -0400
              Re: Passing a Method Name to a Method, Redux Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-23 19:12 -0400
        Re: Passing a Method Name to a Method, Redux Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-07-23 17:24 +0000
          Re: Passing a Method Name to a Method, Redux Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-23 19:22 -0400
            Re: Passing a Method Name to a Method, Redux Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-07-24 10:02 +0000

csiph-web