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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #13047 > unrolled thread

Re: call by reference

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

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

  Re: call by reference Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 18:13 -0700
    Re: call by reference "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-03-25 08:12 +0000
      Re: call by reference Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-03-25 07:00 -0700
        Re: call by reference John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-26 10:56 +0100
      Re: call by reference Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta@uta.fi> - 2012-03-26 23:04 +0300
        Re: call by reference Dr J R Stockton <reply1213@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> - 2012-03-27 18:20 +0100
          Re: call by reference Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-27 16:28 -0700
            Re: call by reference "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-03-28 08:20 +0000
      Re: call by reference Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2012-03-26 21:31 -0800
        Re: call by reference "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-03-27 07:25 +0000

#13047 — Re: call by reference

Evertjan  wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>>> Reference in my book, in Javascript or any other language,
>>> is transferring the variable-pointer or object-pointer
>>> and not the value.
>
>> Nope.
>
> "Nope"?
> Could you speak normal English in this international NG, please.

Did you really not understand this?  This is the first time I've seen
someone here whose understanding of idiomatic English seems fairly
firm but who wouldn't recognize "nope" as an informal, but very common
English synonym for "no".  The word carries overtones slightly
different from plain "no", especially when used as a single-word
response to a declaration; whereas "no" might have other implications,
"nope" almost always implies, "you're wrong about that."  So did you
really not understand it?  Or are you simply being snarky?  [1]


> And why?
> Do you know my book?

I think the implication is that your book is wrong.  But when you use
"in my book", you appear to be someone who has a clear understanding
of idiomatic English.  Again, did you really not recognize "nope"?


  -- Scott

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=snarky

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#13051

Scott Sauyet wrote on 25 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:

> Did you really not understand this?  This is the first time I've seen
> someone here whose understanding of idiomatic English seems fairly
> firm but who wouldn't recognize "nope" as an informal, but very common
> English synonym for "no".  The word carries overtones slightly
> different from plain "no", especially when used as a single-word
> response to a declaration; whereas "no" might have other implications,
> "nope" almost always implies, "you're wrong about that."  So did you
> really not understand it?  Or are you simply being snarky?  [1]

I don't think I want to follow your link about "snarky". It is just like 
"nope", see below, a word not to be used here because of local idiomatic 
implications.

>> And why?
>> Do you know my book?
> 
> I think the implication is that your book is wrong. 

In sensu strictior the "nope" just says that it is not in my book, quod 
non.

> But when you use
> "in my book", you appear to be someone who has a clear understanding
> of idiomatic English.  Again, did you really not recognize "nope"?

Scot, this is not email but usenet. So responses should not go specificly 
and do not go uniquely to the poster responded upon.
[The "Scot" just means that I respond to the above text written by Scot, 
not that I specifically address him/you, because then I should have used 
email]

What I personally understand or can easily guess about English idiom is
not that important as keeping the conversation understandable for the 
total NG-audience. Even so as a polyglottic English and so British 
native, I cannot and dion't want to claim to understand the idiomatic 
differences felt in other parts of the world where English lately became 
the first language, like India, the States, etc. 

In an international NG, that uses English as a lingua franca,
English monoglots should be aware not to use this as an easy advantage by 
using local idioms.  

So claiming it is alright to use some idiom, just because the claiming 
monoglot claims he is an English native, is Netiquettically wrong.
[Unless a NG has English idiom as a topic, ofcourse]

"nope" is a clear example of a word to be avoided, because when it is no 
different from "no", why use it, but for adding some extra perhaps 
condescending, innuendo, that could mean "we the English natives know 
better". 

That's why a question of "what do you mean by that word" is not out of 
place in this NG. 

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

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

#13053

Evertjan wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>
>> Did you really not understand this?  This is the first time I've seen
>> someone here whose understanding of idiomatic English seems fairly
>> firm but who wouldn't recognize "nope" as an informal, but very common
>> English synonym for "no".  [ ... ]  So did you
>> really not understand it?  Or are you simply being snarky?  [1]
>
> I don't think I want to follow your link about "snarky". It is just like
> "nope", see below, a word not to be used here because of local idiomatic
> implications.

Well, it is not, as far as I know, an Americanism.  In fact, the only
usages I've seen of "snarky" are on internet discussions, USENET or
otherwise.

But if you didn't notice, I was disagreeing with your contention that
"nope" shouldn't be used here.  If you had asked what was meant by
"nope", someone would almost certainly have explained.  But it's
simply not obscure enough to avoid.  If someone uses "truck" instead
of "lorry" in this forum, certainly she is helping pinpoint where she
learned English, but she is not likely confusing anyone.  (Now if
someone uses a generic version of "forum" -- which certainly
encompasses USENET news groups -- to describe comp.lang.javascript, he
might well be told that this is not a forum, but a newsgroup.  It's a
risk I'm prepared to accept.)

>>> And why?
>>> Do you know my book?
>
>> I think the implication is that your book is wrong.
>
> In sensu strictior the "nope" just says that it is not in my book, quod
> non.

And being just as strict, Gene should perhaps have asked precisely
which book you meant.  But he understood that phrase, and still
responded to the underlying misconception and not to your phrasing it
as merely your opinion.


>> But when you use
>> "in my book", you appear to be someone who has a clear understanding
>> of idiomatic English.  Again, did you really not recognize "nope"?
>
> Scot, this is not email but usenet. So responses should not go specificly
> and do not go uniquely to the poster responded upon.

Nonetheless, dialogues occur frequently, and as long as the points
made are applicable to a general audience, there is no harm in
responding in such a fashion.  Are you not the one who said, "And
why?  Do you know my book?" which is a clear-cut conversational
style.


> [The "Scot" just means that I respond to the above text written by Scot,
> not that I specifically address him/you, because then I should have used
> email]

"him/you"???  I think you're undermining your own point here.  :-)


> [ ... ]
> In an international NG, that uses English as a lingua franca,
> English monoglots should be aware not to use this as an easy advantage by
> using local idioms.

And should people refrain from an occasional Latin phrase too, as a
much larger portion of the readers are likely not to recognize that?
I think not.  Those who don't understand can look up, say, "sensu
strictior" or ask for clarification.


> So claiming it is alright to use some idiom, just because the claiming
> monoglot claims he is an English native, is Netiquettically wrong.

Nope.

:-)


> "nope" is a clear example of a word to be avoided, because when it is no
> different from "no", why use it, but for adding some extra perhaps
> condescending, innuendo, that could mean "we the English natives know
> better".

Is "nope" actually an Americanism?  I think not.  Although it might
not be the Queen's English, it's widely understood.  And I've never
heard any particular condescending innuendo attached to it either,
just the sense of informality that would allow it to stand in for a
plain "no", but not for the "no" in "no, thank you".


> That's why a question of "what do you mean by that word" is not out of
> place in this NG.

It's hard to imagine appeals for clarification to ever be out of
bounds.

Okay, this is far off-topic.  Feel free to respond, but I think I've
said far more than I ever needed to on this.

  -- Scott

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

#13062

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 at 07:00:19, in comp.lang.javascript, Scott Sauyet
wrote:

  <snip>
>Is "nope" actually an Americanism?  I think not.

My feeling is that "nope" is a Hollywood idea of the Cowboy dialect.
Think John Wayne. I certainly don't remember anyone here in England
using it in ordinary conversation.


>  Although it might
>not be the Queen's English, it's widely understood.  And I've never
>heard any particular condescending innuendo attached to it either,
>just the sense of informality that would allow it to stand in for a
>plain "no", but not for the "no" in "no, thank you".
  <snip>

When John Wayne uses it it has a different emphasis to a plain "no".
It's more abrupt and final.


FWIW

  John
-- 
John Harris

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

#13071

"Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> writes:

> I don't think I want to follow your link about "snarky". It is just
> like "nope", see below, a word not to be used here because of local
> idiomatic implications.

  Come now, "snarky" is perfectly normal English and readily
understandable to a competent non-native speaker.

> "nope" is a clear example of a word to be avoided, because when it is no 
> different from "no", why use it, but for adding some extra perhaps 
> condescending, innuendo, that could mean "we the English natives know 
> better". 

  You're imagining things. It's of course a good idea to avoid obscure
local idioms, but "nope" is not in the least problematic in this
respect, and certainly does not imply any native speaker superiority in
ordinary usage. Your harping on this issue is merely bizarre, and if
you're genuinly worried about poor hapless non-natives with their
tenuous grasp on the intricacies of English, I suggest instead of these
peculiar tirades you work on your sentence construction.

-- 
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@uta.fi)

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."
  - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

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

#13097

In comp.lang.javascript message <87aa33cems.fsf@uta.fi>, Mon, 26 Mar
2012 23:04:59, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta@uta.fi> posted:

>  You're imagining things. It's of course a good idea to avoid obscure
>local idioms, but "nope" is not in the least problematic in this
>respect, and certainly does not imply any native speaker superiority in
>ordinary usage. Your harping on this issue is merely bizarre, and if
>you're genuinly worried about poor hapless non-natives with their
>tenuous grasp on the intricacies of English, I suggest instead of these
>peculiar tirades you work on your sentence construction.

You need to believe that Evertjan has learned, rather well, proper
English; on the other hand, less experienced programmers are likely to
have acquired what the Americans think of as English. "Nope" might be
spoken, but is not commonly written, by grown-up Britons (and Dutch?)

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk  Turnpike 6.05  WinXP.
 Web  <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQ-type topics, acronyms, and links.
 Command-prompt MiniTrue is useful for viewing/searching/altering files. Free,
 DOS/Win/UNIX now 2.0.6; see <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pc-links.htm>.

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

#13099

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:20:14 +0100, Dr J R Stockton
<reply1213@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> wrote:

>In comp.lang.javascript message <87aa33cems.fsf@uta.fi>, Mon, 26 Mar
>2012 23:04:59, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta@uta.fi> posted:
>
>>  You're imagining things. It's of course a good idea to avoid obscure
>>local idioms, but "nope" is not in the least problematic in this
>>respect, and certainly does not imply any native speaker superiority in
>>ordinary usage. Your harping on this issue is merely bizarre, and if
>>you're genuinly worried about poor hapless non-natives with their
>>tenuous grasp on the intricacies of English, I suggest instead of these
>>peculiar tirades you work on your sentence construction.
>
>You need to believe that Evertjan has learned, rather well, proper
>English; on the other hand, less experienced programmers are likely to
>have acquired what the Americans think of as English. "Nope" might be

     Well, I have been programming since I was 14 and am now 51 so I
do not thing that I fit the less-experienced category.  I have seen
"nope" written before, and I do not recall it ever having caused
confusion.  If you and Evertjan need some English tutoring, I am sure
that we could oblige.

     Evertjan was simply looking for things to complain about...

>spoken, but is not commonly written, by grown-up Britons (and Dutch?)

...and is not doing so well on the grown-up category.

     Think of it as me helping expand your knowledge of the world by
just that little, extra bit.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#13100

Gene Wirchenko wrote on 28 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:

>>You need to believe that Evertjan has learned, rather well, proper
>>English; on the other hand, less experienced programmers are likely to
>>have acquired what the Americans think of as English. "Nope" might be
> 
>      Well, I have been programming since I was 14 and am now 51 so I
> do not thing that I fit the less-experienced category.  

John and I, we are much older and are much longer into programming.

So if programming experience is measured in time, what you imply here, then 
yes, you perfectly fit this less-experienced category.

> I have seen "nope" written before, and I do not recall it ever having
> caused confusion. 

That does not mean a thing. 

This confusion might not have been divulged, some people do not like to be 
shown inexperienced, even in some distant local slang, which they 
mistakenly could have thought to be mainstream English.

This latest category even fits you, and you being a selfprofessed native.

Or you might not have noticed, since you appear not to care very much for 
writing mainstream understandable English in an international NG,
saying that anything is correct as long as you do not notice confusion,
and even pride yourself for widening the knowledge.

And probably you are a newbee in this NG.

> If you and Evertjan need some English tutoring, I am sure
> that we could oblige.

"we", that is a nice pluralis majestatis, or are you implying the NG by 
using "we" to set some, in this case far more experienced NG'ers apart.

What year, btw, dit you start using javascript and when did you first post 
in this NG, Gene?

In my view, good reasoning is far more important than staving your points 
with how long one is programming or how young one is.

 
>  Evertjan was simply looking for things to complain about...
> 
>> spoken, but is not commonly written, by grown-up Britons (and Dutch?)
> 
> ...and is not doing so well on the grown-up category.

Typical of the young, that boast to have been programming at the age of 14.


> Think of it as me helping expand your knowledge of the world by
> just that little, extra bit.

"It"? Think of what?

You adding to the difficulty of the ones not fluent in English using local 
slang in an international NG?

This NG's topic is Javascript, so only javascript and by Netiquette, the 
functioning of this NG, is on topic. 

Expanding someone's knowledge of the world by teaching distant local slang
definitely is off topic. Search for a NG about local English slang if the 
urge is so compelling.

"knowledge of the world"?

English is not that important to the wold that you should teach it's local 
slang in a javascript NG.  



-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

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

#13078

Evertjan. wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote on 25 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> Did you really not understand this?  This is the first time I've seen
>> someone here whose understanding of idiomatic English seems fairly
>> firm but who wouldn't recognize "nope" as an informal, but very common
>> English synonym for "no".  The word carries overtones slightly
>> different from plain "no", especially when used as a single-word
>> response to a declaration; whereas "no" might have other implications,
>> "nope" almost always implies, "you're wrong about that."  So did you
>> really not understand it?  Or are you simply being snarky?  [1]
>
> I don't think I want to follow your link about "snarky". It is just like
> "nope", see below, a word not to be used here because of local idiomatic
> implications.
>
>>> And why?
>>> Do you know my book?
>>
>> I think the implication is that your book is wrong.
>
> In sensu strictior the "nope" just says that it is not in my book, quod
> non.
>
>> But when you use
>> "in my book", you appear to be someone who has a clear understanding
>> of idiomatic English.  Again, did you really not recognize "nope"?
>
> Scot, this is not email but usenet. So responses should not go specificly
> and do not go uniquely to the poster responded upon.
> [The "Scot" just means that I respond to the above text written by Scot,
> not that I specifically address him/you, because then I should have used
> email]
>
> What I personally understand or can easily guess about English idiom is
> not that important as keeping the conversation understandable for the
> total NG-audience. Even so as a polyglottic English and so British
> native, I cannot and dion't want to claim to understand the idiomatic
> differences felt in other parts of the world where English lately became
> the first language, like India, the States, etc.
>
> In an international NG, that uses English as a lingua franca,
* being picky.."lingua franca" as in "language (of) France" or as in 
"common language consisting of Italian mixed with French, Spanish, 
Greek, and Arabic" or "language of/for confirmation"?

> English monoglots should be aware not to use this as an easy advantage by
> using local idioms.
>
> So claiming it is alright to use some idiom, just because the claiming
> monoglot claims he is an English native, is Netiquettically wrong.
> [Unless a NG has English idiom as a topic, ofcourse]
>
> "nope" is a clear example of a word to be avoided, because when it is no
> different from "no", why use it, but for adding some extra perhaps
> condescending, innuendo, that could mean "we the English natives know
> better".
>
> That's why a question of "what do you mean by that word" is not out of
> place in this NG.
>

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

#13080

Robert Baer wrote on 27 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:

> * being picky.."lingua franca" as in "language (of) France" or as in 
> "common language consisting of Italian mixed with French, Spanish, 
> Greek, and Arabic" or "language of/for confirmation"?

Your being picky [why?] leads you astray.

"Franca" here does not mean "of France" but means "free".
[France being called after the free germanic tribegroup the Franks]

Examples of linguae francae are: Koine Greek, Malay, Latin, Swahili, etc

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_franca>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks>

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web