🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5218@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
> From article <5853:Nov720:22:4890@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, by brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein):
> >> It makes sense to make the most commonly
> >> desired configuration be the default.  You always ask for the
> >> reverse of that.
> > Sir, you appear to be lying.
> I'm really tired of your incorrect ad hominem attacks.
  [ ... ]
> 2) I recommend that non-aliased be the default and the user make
> assertions to _allow_ aliasing; 3) I made that recommendation in
> _response_ to your suggestion that a no-alias assertion be used;
> 4) as above, I said that the default should be the more commonly
> desired; 5) you _DID_ suggest (point3) the reverse.

Sir, you are lying. I quote an article of mine from April:

: Hmmm, this doesn't sound right. After all, if A and B could be aliased,
: and B and C could be aliased, then A and C could be aliased. (This is
: why the natural keyword is ``alias,'' not ``noalias.'')

I have always held the same position. You can see exactly the same
position in many of my articles, and in my complaint that the Convex
anti-aliasing mechanism makes the opposite assumption.

You claim that I have suggested otherwise. I challenge you to prove your
claim. You will fail, because you are lying.

---Dan