Re: Rational

[David Kastrup]

Hans Åberg <address@hidden> writes:

>> On 23 May 2018, at 11:04, Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>>> The ultimate in self-assertion is to disagree with those that agree
>>> with you.
>> 
>> Hans, such remarks aren't helpful.  You sound like you are lecturing.
>> Maybe this is not your intention and you have serious questions – if
>> this is so, please be more careful in formulation.
>
> It means that I am telling what I think the problem is and how to fix
> it,

Sorry to say so, Hans, but work on "the problem" has moved beyond the
stage where one can just propose a generic solution, everybody slaps his
forehead and gets to work and does what it takes to do.

So if you want to be helpful, let go of your consultants' hat and don
the programmers' hat.

> and instead of a suitable reply, I get an endless row of rants, and
> now you fill in with those.

Just as a reminder: this thread is offspring from an endless row of
rather insulting and condescending rants about LilyPond's
limited-precision rational numbers and you jump-started a set of
lectures on the Boehm GC on it predicated on the premise that I don't
know my way around it.  Now the other guy clearly intended to be both
insulting and condescending in order to get his bidding done.  In
contrast to that, you are only condescending and more or less add
accidentally to the implication that everybody involved with LilyPond
programming has to be an idiot compared to yourself.

Now the set of "everybody involved with LilyPond programming" is smaller
than I'd like it to be, and I do my best to lower the barriers of entry.
But the working set acting on garbage collection is rather tiny, and
being a rather smart guy is just the entry fee and not a winning ticket.

-- 
David Kastrup