[antlr-interest] 'netiquette (was: translation of $x references in v3.0)

[John D. Mitchell]

>>>>> "Loring" == Loring Craymer <Loring.G.Craymer at jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
[...]

> Your modesty is overwhelming.  Don't you think that you should have
> quoted your own statement
[...]
> to which I was replying?  Somehow I prefer to be quoted in context.

Huh?  It's called 'netiquette and one of the facets is trimming down posts
to not waste people's time, focus on the parts that one is actually
replying to, etc.

Also, if you look at the headers of the message you'll see quite clearly
that I preserved the In-Reply-To: and References: headers so that the
complete thread of conversation can be followed by anybody.


As to the elided context that you seem to having a problem with, all of the
discussion that the cabal has had as a group (and in which you participated
both in person and via email) and that has taken place in public has been
very clear about what the point that @ is about dynamically scoped
attributes.  I apologize for assuming that people understood that. I shall
endeavour to always be explicit about dynamically scoped attributes in the
future.


Still, I'm confused since you haven't actually answered the question:

>> I'm confused by your harangue.  What does this implementation detail
>> have to do with the topic of @ being used to refer to dynamically-scoped
>> attributes?


Finally, I am quite concerned that the 'netiquette and just plain decency
level in the conversations lately in this forum has gone so far down the
toilet so quickly.  There are plenty of other fora in which that is
acceptable (or even expected) but historically, this forum has been really
quite good and that has contributed to its utility (on many levels).

Thanks,
	John