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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #16504 > unrolled thread

The Point where the FNVW is asked about eligibility for a GAB award <Re: Oddity with java.util.SortedMap>

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  The Point where the FNVW is asked about eligibility for a GAB award <Re: Oddity with java.util.SortedMap> This account has been banned because it violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use <laughing@u.kook> - 2012-07-29 08:03 +0000
    Re: The Point where the FNVW is asked about eligibility for a GAB award <Re: Oddity with java.util.SortedMap> Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2012-07-29 08:23 +0000
      Re: The Point where the FNVW is asked about eligibility for a GAB award <Re: Oddity with java.util.SortedMap> This account has been banned because it violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use <laughing@u.kook> - 2012-07-29 08:35 +0000
        Re: The Point where the FNVW is asked about eligibility for a GAB award <Re: Oddity with java.util.SortedMap> Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2012-07-29 08:58 +0000
          Re: The Point where the FNVW is asked about eligibility for a GAB award <Re: Oddity with java.util.SortedMap> Fred Hall <fkhall@gmail.com> - 2012-07-29 06:43 -0500
            Re: The Point where the FNVW is asked about eligibility for a GAB award <Re: Oddity with java.util.SortedMap> Checkmate <LunaticFringe@The.Edge> - 2012-07-29 11:26 -0700
            Re: The Point where the FNVW is asked about eligibility for a GAB award <Re: Oddity with java.util.SortedMap> kensi <kensi_kensington@zoonoses.de> - 2012-07-29 18:53 -0400
    NOMINATION - Paul "Two-Socks" Derbyshire for GAB  <Re: Oddity with java.util.SortedMap> This account has been banned because it violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use <laughing@u.kook> - 2012-07-30 01:21 +0000
      Re: NOMINATION - Paul "Two-Socks" Derbyshire for GAB  <Re: Oddity with java.util.SortedMap> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler <fnvw@databasix.com> - 2012-07-29 21:11 -0500
        Re: NOMINATION - Paul "Two-Socks" Derbyshire for GAB  <Re: Oddity with java.util.SortedMap> [Tor] Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler {One Of Three} <FNVW@AltUsenetKooks.com> - 2012-07-30 02:30 +0000
        Re: NOMINATION - Paul "Two-Socks" Derbyshire for GAB  <Re: Oddity with java.util.SortedMap> This account has been banned because it violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use <laughing@u.kook> - 2012-07-30 02:33 +0000

#16504 — The Point where the FNVW is asked about eligibility for a GAB award <Re: Oddity with java.util.SortedMap>

NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.14.135.55


On  Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:10:23 GMT, Captain Koloth Derbyshite 
<koloth17@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 30, 10:29 am, Lew <no...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
>> 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 fuck's sake. 

(FNVW, is it possible to nominate Paul "Two Socks" Derbyshire for the 
Goofy Azzed Babboon for this very old post?) 


-- 
If you want to see something lamer than John Edward Kook's Aratzio frogeries, 
                   check out Scatboi's forgeries.
"It's not paranoia when it's careful analysis of a trail of forensic 
           evidence gathered from post headers, fuckwit." - writes 
   Feerless Forensic Usenet Investigator, Nadless the Derbyshite sock.  
Then Nadless The Kook presents his 'forensic evidence' of 'outright forgery':
<ju2hm1$r7a$1@dont-email.me> = From: Nadegda <nad318b404@gmale.invalid> 
<ju55oa$9h3$2@dont-email.me> = From: Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#16505

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:03:37 +0000, This account has been banned because
it violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use wrote:

[silent followup-to denied. And why are you crossposting your kookfeud 
with "Derbyshire" to comp.lang.java.programmer, kooky?]

> NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.14.135.55
> 
> 
> On  Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:10:23 GMT, Captain Koloth Derbyshite
> <koloth17@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> (FNVW, is it possible to nominate Paul "Two Socks" Derbyshire for the
> Goofy Azzed Babboon for this very old post?)

*You* cannot nominate anyone for anything, Offishul AUK Spankling.

Furthermore, I am assuming you mutated that attribution line in your 
usual manner and it actually only said "Captain Koloth" or similar. If 
so, the new rules forbid real-lifing the guy unless he's an outerfilther 
himself.

Lastly, there's no evidence the name you stated is the name of the poster 
that wrote that old article anyway.

P.S. You are obviously a complete nincompoop when it comes to Star Trek. 
The poster of that old article was obviously acting the part of a 
Klingon, for whatever reason. Where was it, in a Star Trek group? (Since 
you didn't post a message-ID, did alter the attribution line, and didn't 
specify the group, I can't find it.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16506

Paul G. Derbyshire <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:03:37 +0000, This account has been banned because
> it violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use wrote:
> 
> [silent followup-to denied

Restored; you've already stunk up that group enough, Paul Derbyshire. 

> And why are you crossposting your kookfeud 
> with "Derbyshire" to comp.lang.java.programmer<SLAP>

Paul G. Derbyshite, stop speaking about yourself in the third person. 

 
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.14.135.55
>> 
>> 
>> On  Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:10:23 GMT, Captain Koloth Derbyshite
>> <koloth17@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> (FNVW, is it possible to nominate Paul "Two Socks" Derbyshire for the
>> Goofy Azzed Babboon for this very old post?)
> 
> *You*<SLAP>

Shut up, Paul Derbyshite; you are not the FNVW. 



-- 
If you want to see something lamer than John Edward Kook's Aratzio frogeries, 
                   check out Scatboi's forgeries.
"It's not paranoia when it's careful analysis of a trail of forensic 
           evidence gathered from post headers, fuckwit." - writes 
   Feerless Forensic Usenet Investigator, Nadless the Derbyshite sock.  
Then Nadless The Kook presents his 'forensic evidence' of 'outright forgery':
<ju2hm1$r7a$1@dont-email.me> = From: Nadegda <nad318b404@gmale.invalid> 
<ju55oa$9h3$2@dont-email.me> = From: Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16508

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:35:29 +0000, This account has been banned because
it violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use wrote:

[silent followup-to denied]

>> [silent followup-to denied
> 
> Restored; you've already stunk up that group enough<SLAP!>

YOU started your latest kooky feud-thread with a post that YOU chose to 
crosspost, irrelevantly, to that group, instead of choosing to post it 
only to alt.usenet.kooks, kook.

>> And why are you crossposting your kookfeud with "Derbyshire" to
>> comp.lang.java.programmer<SLAP>
> 
> Paul G. Derbyshite, stop speaking about yourself in the third person.

Delusion noted, kook.

>> *You* cannot nominate anyone for anything, Offishul AUK Spankling.
> 
> Shut up, Paul Derbyshite; you are not the FNVW.

No, he isn't -- whoever he is. But I *am* an FNVW (two of three), and, 
regardless, as a deemed kook you cannot nominate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16510

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:58:18 +0000 (UTC), Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote in
<jv2tva$kpm$1@dont-email.me>:

>But I *am* an FNVW (two of three)

LMFAO.  Indeed you are 2 of the 3 socks pretending,Socky.

For Fuck's Sake!  You're Winning!
-- 

"Paul Derbyshire is the reason God made killfiles and suitcase nukes." --  Camille Klein in rec.games.mecha

"Real lifing of ordinary kooks is forbidden. Real lifing of outerfilthers, 
to teach them a lesson, is permitted up to a point"--Nadegda Derbyshire
Message-ID: <jv1svh$4do$6@dont-email.me>

alt.paul-derbyshire.fix.it.now
alt.paul-derbyshire.fix.it
alt.paul-derbyshire

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16551

Warning!  Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by 
Checkmate! 

First, check out what Fred Hall said:


> 
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:58:18 +0000 (UTC), Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote in
> <jv2tva$kpm$1@dont-email.me>:
> 
> >But I *am* an FNVW (two of three)
> 
> LMFAO.  Indeed you are 2 of the 3 socks pretending,Socky.
> 
> For Fuck's Sake!  You're Winning!

For fuck's sake, he's whining.

-- 
For Fuck's Sake

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16594

On 29/07/2012 7:43 AM, Fred Hall wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:58:18 +0000 (UTC), Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote in
> <jv2tva$kpm$1@dont-email.me>:
>
>> But I *am* an FNVW (two of three)
>
> LMFAO.  Indeed you are 2 of the 3 socks pretending,Socky.

So now all three FNVWs are socks again? Make up your mind, dammit!

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16599 — NOMINATION - Paul "Two-Socks" Derbyshire for GAB <Re: Oddity with java.util.SortedMap>

Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler <fnvw@databasix.com> wrote: 

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:03:37 GMT, This account has been banned because
> it violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use <laughing@u.kook> wrote in
> <t76Rr.14200$z66.1370@newsfe10.iad>: 
> 
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.14.135.55
>>
>>
>>On  Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:10:23 GMT, Captain Koloth Derbyshite 
>><koloth17@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 30, 10:29 am, Lew <no...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
>>>> 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 fuck'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? 


-- 
If you want to see something lamer than John Edward Kook's Aratzio frogeries, 
                   check out Scatboi's forgeries.
"It's not paranoia when it's careful analysis of a trail of forensic 
           evidence gathered from post headers, fuckwit." - writes 
   Feerless Forensic Usenet Investigator, Nadless the Derbyshite sock.  
Then Nadless The Kook presents his 'forensic evidence' of 'outright forgery':
<ju2hm1$r7a$1@dont-email.me> = From: Nadegda <nad318b404@gmale.invalid> 
<ju55oa$9h3$2@dont-email.me> = From: Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16600 — Re: NOMINATION - Paul "Two-Socks" Derbyshire for GAB <Re: Oddity with java.util.SortedMap>

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 01:21:24 GMT, This account has been banned because it violated the Google Groups
Terms Of Use <laughing@u.kook> wrote in <oklRr.12223$lA2.5191@newsfe07.iad>:

>Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler <fnvw@databasix.com> wrote: 
>
>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:03:37 GMT, This account has been banned because
>> it violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use <laughing@u.kook> wrote in
>> <t76Rr.14200$z66.1370@newsfe10.iad>: 
>> 
>>>NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.14.135.55
>>>
>>>
>>>On  Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:10:23 GMT, Captain Koloth Derbyshite 
>>><koloth17@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 30, 10:29 am, Lew <no...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
>>>>> 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 fuck'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.
-- 
July 2012 Nominations:
http://blackhelicopternews.blogspot.com/2012/07/july-2012-nominations.html

http://blackhelicopternews.blogspot.com/p/award-winners-1994-2012.html

http://fnvw.databasix.com (awards descriptions and more)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16601 — Re: NOMINATION - Paul "Two-Socks" Derbyshire for GAB <Re: Oddity with java.util.SortedMap>

Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler, in
<news:jv4po5$nha$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com> did thusly write:

> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 01:21:24 GMT, This account has been banned because it violated the Google Groups
> Terms Of Use <laughing@u.kook> wrote in <oklRr.12223$lA2.5191@newsfe07.iad>:
> 
>>Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler <fnvw@databasix.com> wrote: 
>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:03:37 GMT, This account has been banned because
>>> it violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use <laughing@u.kook> wrote in
>>> <t76Rr.14200$z66.1370@newsfe10.iad>: 
>>> 
>>>>NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.14.135.55
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On  Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:10:23 GMT, Captain Koloth Derbyshite 
>>>><koloth17@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 30, 10:29 am, Lew <no...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 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 fuck'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.

Acceptance denied, Drunken Kook Masquerading As Ex-FNVW (aka Fred
Hall).

The triumvirate has voted you out, you are officially impeached. You
have no power, you have no right of acceptance of nominations, in
fact, being a deemed kook yourself (Offishul AUK Pegboy For Life, by
FNVW decree 10Jul2012), you cannot even nominate, second or vote.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

<sniggle>

-- 
/\                       Properly known as James
  \  /\         THERE IS NO CABAL -- LONG LIVE THE NEW CABAL
   \/  \     The AUK coup is complete. The Old Cabal is no more.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16602 — Re: NOMINATION - Paul "Two-Socks" Derbyshire for GAB <Re: Oddity with java.util.SortedMap>

Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler <fnvw@databasix.com> wrote: 

> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 01:21:24 GMT, This account has been banned because
> it violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use <laughing@u.kook> wrote in
> <oklRr.12223$lA2.5191@newsfe07.iad>: 
> 
>>Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler <fnvw@databasix.com> wrote: 
>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:03:37 GMT, This account has been banned because
>>> it violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use <laughing@u.kook> wrote in
>>> <t76Rr.14200$z66.1370@newsfe10.iad>: 
>>> 
>>>>NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.14.135.55
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On  Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:10:23 GMT, Captain Koloth Derbyshite 
>>>><koloth17@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 30, 10:29 am, Lew <no...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 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 fuck'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.

Thank you, Mister One And Only True Wrangler. 

-- 
If you want to see something lamer than John Edward Kook's Aratzio frogeries, 
                   check out Scatboi's forgeries.
"It's not paranoia when it's careful analysis of a trail of forensic 
           evidence gathered from post headers, fuckwit." - writes 
   Feerless Forensic Usenet Investigator, Nadless the Derbyshite sock.  
Then Nadless The Kook presents his 'forensic evidence' of 'outright forgery':
<ju2hm1$r7a$1@dont-email.me> = From: Nadegda <nad318b404@gmale.invalid> 
<ju55oa$9h3$2@dont-email.me> = From: Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web