Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: Clair Grant on VMS code base
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 12:56:59 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <vtqtqr$f45$1@reader1.panix.com>
References: <vsh5m5$3is6e$1@dont-email.me> <67fee5b8$0$708$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <vtplin$9us$2@reader1.panix.com> <vtqt6g$j0ll$2@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 12:56:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80";
	logging-data="15493"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Bytes: 3904
Lines: 52

In article <vtqt6g$j0ll$2@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajhøj  <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>On 4/16/2025 9:29 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <67fee5b8$0$708$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
>> Arne Vajhøj  <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> On 4/14/2025 9:34 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> I'd argue that such comparisons can be misleading.  As a simple example,
>>>> specifying some arguments and invoking some routine.  In either case,
>>>> the arguments must be specified, then invoking the routine.  Is each
>>>> PUSH of an argument in assembler a separate instruction, or, just
>>>> specification of an argument?  One must still specify the arguments in
>>>> either case.
>>>>
>>>> An example of a style I favor:
>>>>
>>>>           Stat% = SYS$QIOW(       ,                       !  Event flag &
>>>>                                   ListenCh% By Value,     !  VMS channel &
>>>>                                   IO$_SETCHAR By Value,   !  Operation &
>>>>                                   IOSB::Stat%,            !  I/O status block &
>>>>                                   ,                       !  AST routine &
>>>>                                   ,                       !  AST parameter &
>>>>                                   ListenOpt::Protocol%,   !  P1 &
>>>>                                   ,                       !  P2 &
>>>>                                   ServerItemLst::Len%,    !  P3 - local socket na^
>>>>                                   BackLog% By Value,      !  P4 - connection back^
>>>>                                   SockOptItemList::Len%,  !  P5 - socket options &
>>>>                                   )                       !  P6
>>>>
>>>> Ok, how many lines of code?
>>>
>>> The question about line counting has already been raised
>>> by Lawrence.
>> 
>> Lawrence is a troll, and most of us have plonked him.
>
>It is very fine if people simply don't read posts from
>and replies to whomever they don't consider worth reading.
>
>But if such people replies then it means that other people
>start to see duplicate questions/comments.

Rather, if people have plonked the guy and you choose to
continue to interact with him, despite the fact that he is
obviously acting in bad faith 95% of the time, then don't be
surprised when people who aren't start to ask duplicate
questions.

Saying that he already asked the same question isn't
particularly useful or relevant, since most of us are choosing
not to feed the troll.

	- Dan C.