Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder7.news.weretis.net!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!news4.open-news-network.org!.POSTED.home.meteotest.ch!not-for-mail From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript Subject: Re: Firefox changed IFRAME behaviour - I need a remedy?? Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2019 12:48:35 +0200 Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Lines: 92 Message-ID: <5274396.DvuYhMxLoT@PointedEars.de> References: <593a3b98-6915-4561-b4df-0b096d1cdd56@googlegroups.com> <0d372bee-66f1-4aa6-9b15-2b802c70c1a6@googlegroups.com> <4a0f55db-a21c-4fb1-aec3-e678e40b41e0@googlegroups.com> <1783375.m5R59jPM9B@PointedEars.de> <4d37f8fe-1e46-4eac-8e1b-df9756377688@googlegroups.com> <1676946.idUJCsOoGn@PointedEars.de> <2255007.fJ7HjIvnrp@PointedEars.de> <2492403.mvXUDI8C0e@PointedEars.de> <9c462603-c7b4-4174-9d0d-7c3fee35a3c7@googlegroups.com> Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit Injection-Info: news4.open-news-network.org; posting-host="home.meteotest.ch:178.22.109.226"; logging-data="22313"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@exeter.123backup.de" User-Agent: KNode/4.14.10 X-Face: %i>XG-yXR'\"2P/C_aO%~;2o~?g0pPKmbOw^=NT`tprDEf++D.m7"}HW6.#=U:?2GGctkL,f89@H46O$ASoW&?s}.k+&. On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 1:56:08 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > wrote: >> Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote: >> > You've defined "sufficient" as a function of not caring or as a >> > property of some alternative language. This is not even wrong [1] >> Nonsense. What is deemed “sufficient” obviously means different things >> for different people. > > Read your own damned words: > > On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 6:48:40 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > wrote: >> But that is merely your *opinion*. Apparently more people think that the >> current ECMAScript type system is sufficient than not, either because >> they do not care; because they are using ECMAScript implementations like >> Dart, TypeScript, and Flow that have static type-checking natively; or Your point being? > Anyway, onto more foot-in-mouth: > >> >> > 2. If you're using a superset or an alternative language for your >> >> > medium of expression then you've admitted an insufficiency. >> >> >> >> Fallacy: Affirming the antecedent. >> > >> > Modus Ponens is an inference rule, not a fallacy. You stated the >> > proposition, I stated the implication. >> This was not /modus ponens/. > > > > > You were saying? Ah yes, I meant *the fallacy* instead, affirming the _consequent_. >> >> > Either your language can represent and enforce your domain or >> >> > discourse, or it can't. >> >> Fallacy: False dilemma. >> > You can't be half pregnant nor half stupid. If you think this is not a >> > binary choice, present another. >> >> Something can be satisfactory or sufficient (the two words are >> synonymous) in one aspect, but not in another; and it is also possible >> that it can be that for one person, but not another. > > In other words meaningless as a term. Not at all. > That's why I gave an explicit definition. You gave *your* definition *of* what would be sufficient. Do you see the difference? > Responding to my definition by saying: "But it can mean something else" I did NOT say that. > is just noise, No. > especially when no alternative definition is provided. Irrelevant. >> >> > Also, since when is Dart an ECMAScript implementation? >> >> >> >> Apparently it is not, and the author of the cited article has confused >> >> the fact that it is also an Ecma standard with the idea that it were >> >> also an ECMAScript implementation. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > ...and you did not do your due diligence before using it as reference. >> >> I said “apparently”. > > You shifted the blame. Not at all. Given your attitude, there is no point to continue discussing from here. -- PointedEars FAQ: | | Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.