Multiple executables in path (Was: NON-SOURCE POSTINGS CONSIDERED HARMFUL!)

[Dan Bernstein]

In article <1991Jan26.093659.26192 at convex.com> tchrist at convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
> How much mud can the mud-slinger sling?  How many insults can be lobbed by
> this sadly disturbed individual?  Dragging in corporate affiliation like
> this name is but another childish tactic, and it's not even close to
> correct.

Objective facts: Every nasty technique you accuse me of using, you used
first. You started flaming first, you started insulting first, you
started dragging in affiliation first. Any reader can verify these
firsts.

The fact, is, Tom, that every step this discussion has taken towards
USENET hell, you've dragged it down that step.

``Sadly disturbed.'' ``Childish.'' Wow. I think Freud invented the word
``projection'' for Tom's behavior.

> Dan's original code had 30 quotes, 9 backslashes, and an
> indirection is ugly: this in itself makes it hard to understand by almost
> anyone there is.

Are you saying that any code with 30 quotes, 9 backslashes, and
indirection is hard to understand? You haven't presented any logic in
support of your position, so either you're being irrational or you're
making an idiotic generalization. (Of course, anyone who knows how to
type ``alias foo'' can remove almost all the quotes, backslashes, and
indirection before trying to understand the alias, but I take it that
this wizardly technique is too advanced for you.)

> Your approach has not been proven to be a reasonable solution.

Objective fact: You started criticizing other people's code first. You
started criticizing code on subjective grounds (like whether it's
``reasonable'') first.

> You're expressing an alternate algorithm to solve a problem.

As I told you and as you failed to acknowledge, the difference between
my algorithm and yours is that I'm taking the entire path at once while
you're taking one directory at a time. To any mathematician this is a
trivial difference; sorry if it doesn't seem so trivial to you.

> :> Leave the
> :> programming langauge at sh if it will eliminate an irrevlant complaint of
> :> yours.
> :Huh? Wtf is irrevlant? Can anyone understand that sentence?
> It means irrelevant, Dan.  Doesn't seem to me like a hard typo to
> pattern-match out something that makes sense.  But maybe your gifts
> lie in other directions, like senseless attacks.

Objective fact: You gave the first typo flame in this discussion.
(``Data flaw,'' in case you've forgotten.)

(I still don't understand that sentence, btw. The two halves don't seem
connected in any way. I'll suppose for the sake of discussion that I
have made some irrelevant complaint, though you haven't pointed out any
such complaint. Why would leaving the programming language at sh
eliminate a complaint of mine? I've been using csh throughout this
subthread.)

---Dan