🚀 go-pugleaf

kloppen@gmdzi.UUCP (Jelske Kloppenburg) writes:
JK>
JK>	And I am waiting for apologies from Martin Neitzel.

In article <346@actisb.UUCP> federico@actisb.UUCP (Federico Heinz) writes:
FH>
FH>	  Er... excuse me for getting in your way,  but aren't you getting
FH>	carried away?  This has been just an exchange of opinions, and a pretty
FH>	technical one at that.

Note quite, I really did attack him in an unfair way.  In the summary
line in the reply to his description of VAL() in the TUM-compiler, I
accused him incorrectly world wide for posting "misinformation".   In
addition, the first sentence of this reply was written in a rude tone.

All this was unjustified.  I reviewed all concerned articles yesterday
and have learned that I most probably misinterpreted Jeske Kloppenburg
and that he probably very well _can_ disseminate the Mod2 definition
from its implementations.  His summary lines from both his articles
mark them explicitly as implementation specific.  This alone invalids
my insult because of misinformation.  A public apology from my side
*is* appropriate:  Es tut mir wirklich leid.

It has become a popular custom in the country both Jelske and I live in
to explain unfortunate, foolish, or plain wrong statements with the
word "blackout".  :-)  Such one must have hit me, too. :-(  I promise
to behave cooler next time.

[The basic reason for the blackout was that I personally can't stand it
when someone argues about matters of a programming language with the
behaviour of his compiler as reference for "correctness".  This is one
of the reasons for the poor s/n ratio in comp.lang.c and I don't want
to see c.l.m2 following it.  I didn't see Jelskes summary lines in his
postings at that time, misunderstood his contribution as an explanation
of the "official" term "type transfer", and ...uh... forgot myself...]

								Martin