Is Class Synonymous with Type?

[garyusenet]

I'm using an example piece of code: -
namespace Wintellect.Interop.Sound{
using System;
using System.Runtime.InteropServices;
using System.ComponentModel;

sealed class Sound{
public static void MessageBeep(BeepTypes type){
if(!MessageBeep((UInt32) type)){
Int32 err = Marshal.GetLastWin32Error();
throw new Win32Exception(err);
}
}

[DllImport("User32.dll", SetLastError=true)]
static extern Boolean MessageBeep(UInt32 beepType);

private Sound(){}
}

enum BeepTypes{
Simple = -1,
Ok = 0x00000000,
IconHand = 0x00000010,
IconQuestion = 0x00000020,
IconExclamation = 0x00000030,
IconAsterisk = 0x00000040
}
}
In the right up one part of explanation states. "Starting from the top,
you will notice that an entire type named Sound is devoted to
MessageBeep. If I need to add support for playing waves using the
Windows API function PlaySound, I could reuse the Sound type. However,
I am not offended by a type that exposes a single public static method.
"

Now i thought a type was a classifcation of variable, and a Class was a
blueprint for a real world thing. Can you tell me am i confusing two
meanings of type here?

or does type simply mean the same thing as class?

Thanks,

Gary-

[Mark Wilden]

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.comwrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om...

>
I have no problem in saying that I'd probably screw up using multiple
inheritance :)

I've used MI a buncha times. It's really not a big deal. I had problems with
it when I first used it. I also had problems understanding pointers.

I fail to see what's controversial about the idea that a statement that
is understandable to those who already know the subject matter could be
confusing to those who are new to the topic though.

Oh, I completely grant that any statement could be confusing to anyone. But
"could be" is different from "is."

As an example, if I were to use the word "reference" in two different
ways in the same sentence (talking about "pass by reference" semantics
and "reference types") I would expect people who understood parameter
passing and the type system to understand what I meant, but I *know*
this causes confusion for a lot of people.

I'd have to see an example.

Yes, but in the discussion of C# types it's almost always used to mean
the C# interface, and overloading it there seems like a bad idea to me.

I know it seems like a bad idea to you. I just don't know if anyone actually
has trouble understanding it. You understood it. Dustin understood it. I
understood it. No one that we know of doesn't understand it. So there's
actually no evidence that the definiton is hard to understand.

That said, it doesn't hurt to be absolutely clear. I was really just talking
to my "hypothetical idiot" point (which is admittedly a pet peeve of mine).

>Yes, we can know whether or not there -seems- to have been confusion.
There
doesn't. That doesn't mean none exists, but there's no evidence that it
does.

I can't see there's any evidence either way. It's like me saying that
you don't seem to have any knowledge of music - I have no evidence
either way, so you *could* argue that it's a valid statement.

I do argue that that's a valid statement. It's completely, 100% true.

The example isn't pertinent here, though, since this newsgroup is about C#
(and explanations thereof), not music, and one's knowledge of C# is quite in
evidence here.

I do have evidence for my belief about the definition:

1) Based on my knowledge of and experience with programmers, I don't think
the definition would be confusing to most or even some of them.

2) No one has expressed confusion.

Hence, 3) It seems that the definition is not confusing.

Do I -know- that invisible pink hippos don't orbit Saturn? It just seems
pretty likely that they do not, based on reasoning enumerated above. Pace
Donald Rumsfeld, the absence of evidence -is- evidence (though not proof) of
absence.

///ark

[Dustin Campbell]

Jon,

I'm going to change my tune now and wisely stop arguing falsehoods. Truthfully,
when I see the phrase "all .NET types are classes", my gut instinct is to
go along with this. However, it really isn't true. The CLI has the notion
of a TypeDef and that is *not* synonymous with a class. A TypeDef can be
a Class, Interface or ValueType but not any combination of the three.

- A TypeDef is a "Class" when its Interface bit (0x00000020) of its TypeAttributes
flags is not set. And, it must ultimately derive from System.Object.
- A TypeDef is an "Interface" when its Interface bit is set. It doesn't inherit
from anything.
- A TypeDef is a "ValueType" when its Interface bit is not set and it ultimately
derives from System.Object.

In addition to TypeDefs there are TypeSpecs which describe other kinds of
types (e.g. pointers, arrays, closed generic types, etc.). Often, these reference
TypeDefs.

And finally, there are TypeRefs which are simply references to TypeDefs or
TypeSpecs that appear in other modules.

The CLI spec seems ties the notion of a "class" to a "reference type".

Best Regards,
Dustin Campbell
Developer Express Inc.

[Dustin Campbell]

>As an example, if I were to use the word "reference" in two different

>ways in the same sentence (talking about "pass by reference"
semantics and "reference types") I would expect people who understood
parameter passing and the type system to understand what I meant, but
I *know* this causes confusion for a lot of people.

I'd have to see an example.

Mark, I don't want to assume that you don't teach programming to other developers
but, as a trainer, I see this sort of confusion all the time. Developers
come from lots of different backgrounds at many different levels. And, it's
likely that a large percentage of this newsgroup's audience are C# learners
-- not experience C# developers. So, using the least confusing language as
possible is always a good idea here (though that's not always achieved by
yours truly).

Best Regards,
Dustin Campbell
Developer Express Inc.

[Mark Wilden]

"Dustin Campbell" <du*****@no-spam-pleasedevexpress.comwrote in message
news:c1**************************@news.microsoft.c om...

Mark, I don't want to assume that you don't teach programming to other
developers

That would not only be a valid assumption - it would be a true assumption as
well. :)

but, as a trainer, I see this sort of confusion all the time.

The difficulty is in qualifying "sort of."

So, using the least confusing language as possible is always a good idea
here (though that's not always achieved by yours truly).

It's impossible to use the least confusing language possible. If it were,
every post would be terabytes long. At some point, you have to be able to
assume a certain background. And understanding how "interface" in general
and "interface" as a C# construct are not identical would, I feel, be part
of most programmers' backgrounds. Maybe not. But I'm sticking with it.

Anyway, we're both arguing based on the characteristics of people we don't
even know - the readers of one particular newsgroup message. Which is kinda
silly, but which characterizes a lot of the arguments I participate in. :)

///ark

[Dave Sexton]

Hi Mark,

<snip>

>>Yes, we can know whether or not there -seems- to have been confusion.
There
doesn't. That doesn't mean none exists, but there's no evidence that it
does.

I can't see there's any evidence either way. It's like me saying that
you don't seem to have any knowledge of music - I have no evidence
either way, so you *could* argue that it's a valid statement.

I do argue that that's a valid statement. It's completely, 100% true.

The example isn't pertinent here, though, since this newsgroup is about C#
(and explanations thereof), not music, and one's knowledge of C# is quite
in evidence here.

I do have evidence for my belief about the definition:

1) Based on my knowledge of and experience with programmers, I don't think
the definition would be confusing to most or even some of them.

2) No one has expressed confusion.

Hence, 3) It seems that the definition is not confusing.

Do I -know- that invisible pink hippos don't orbit Saturn? It just seems
pretty likely that they do not, based on reasoning enumerated above. Pace
Donald Rumsfeld, the absence of evidence -is- evidence (though not proof)
of absence.

There is no evidence of anybody's particular level of experience or
knowledge other than the very few people posting, and any assumptions you
make thereof is a priori, not empirical. I'm sure there are many more
people from all over the world reading this thread, with experience varying
in great degree, other than just the few that are participating in this
conversation. Everybody's needs should be catered to here seeing that it's
a public newsgroup, and that can't be done accurately and clearly using
loose terminology.

I hope that's clear enough :)

--
Dave Sexton

[Mark Wilden]

"Dave Sexton" <dave@jwa[remove.this]online.comwrote in message
news:e3**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

There is no evidence of anybody's particular level of experience or
knowledge other than the very few people posting

Exactly. There is no actual evidence that anyone was confused by the post.
Hence, any assumption that the post was confusing is a priori, not
empirical.

>, and any assumptions you make thereof is a priori, not empirical.

D'oh! :)

Everybody's needs should be catered to here seeing that it's a public
newsgroup

It is impossible to cater to everyone's needs.

and that can't be done accurately and clearly using loose terminology.

What we're arguing about is the definition of "loose." A type theorist might
say that any definition that uses words instead of mathematical symbols is
"loose."

///ark

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Dustin Campbell <du*****@no-spam-pleasedevexpress.comwrote:

I'm going to change my tune now and wisely stop arguing falsehoods. Truthfully,
when I see the phrase "all .NET types are classes", my gut instinct is to
go along with this. However, it really isn't true. The CLI has the notion
of a TypeDef and that is *not* synonymous with a class. A TypeDef can be
a Class, Interface or ValueType but not any combination of the three.

<snip>

Cool. I can stop trying to work out where the spec contradicts itself
in that case :)

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Mark Wilden <mw*****@communitymtm.comwrote:

I have no problem in saying that I'd probably screw up using multiple
inheritance :)

I've used MI a buncha times. It's really not a big deal. I had problems with
it when I first used it. I also had problems understanding pointers.

Unfortunately I'm finding it hard to

I fail to see what's controversial about the idea that a statement that
is understandable to those who already know the subject matter could be
confusing to those who are new to the topic though.

Oh, I completely grant that any statement could be confusing to anyone. But
"could be" is different from "is."

Good job I originally talked about it being "potentially confusing" and
it being "likely to lead to confusion" then :)

As an example, if I were to use the word "reference" in two different
ways in the same sentence (talking about "pass by reference" semantics
and "reference types") I would expect people who understood parameter
passing and the type system to understand what I meant, but I *know*
this causes confusion for a lot of people.

I'd have to see an example.

"When a reference type value is passed by value, it is the reference
which is passed, not the object; it is still passed by value (by
default) rather than by reference, but you need to be clear that the
value in question is a reference."

I often find myself making statements *like* that (hopefully a bit
clearer) because people associate "reference type" and "pass by
reference" when they shouldn't - and I believe that's largely *because*
the word "reference" appears in both.

Yes, but in the discussion of C# types it's almost always used to mean
the C# interface, and overloading it there seems like a bad idea to me.

I know it seems like a bad idea to you. I just don't know if anyone actually
has trouble understanding it. You understood it. Dustin understood it. I
understood it. No one that we know of doesn't understand it. So there's
actually no evidence that the definiton is hard to understand.

No, but I think it's

That said, it doesn't hurt to be absolutely clear. I was really just talking
to my "hypothetical idiot" point (which is admittedly a pet peeve of mine).

I think the difference is that I'm considering a hypothetical newbie,
not a hypothetical idiot. Were you an idiot when you didn't understand
pointers? No - just new to the idea.

In this case, we don't even need to look for a hypothetical newbie -
the post was a response to a *real* newbie (garyusenet) who has never
hidden his "newbieness". What we *don't* know is whether he found it
confusing, or whether he would have found it confusing if there hadn't
been all the other posts talking about types, or whether it may have
laid the foundations for confusion when he learns about interfaces.

I can't see there's any evidence either way. It's like me saying that
you don't seem to have any knowledge of music - I have no evidence
either way, so you *could* argue that it's a valid statement.

I do argue that that's a valid statement. It's completely, 100% true.

The example isn't pertinent here, though, since this newsgroup is about C#
(and explanations thereof), not music, and one's knowledge of C# is quite in
evidence here.

And in this case, the OP's "newbieness" is in evidence too.

I do have evidence for my belief about the definition:

1) Based on my knowledge of and experience with programmers, I don't think
the definition would be confusing to most or even some of them.

Programmers with how much experience though? Having had to try various
ways of explaining certain concepts in the past, I believe a C# newbie
could very easily be confused by the different uses of "interface" in
the statement, either when they first hear it or later when they then
start to use C# interfaces.

2) No one has expressed confusion.

Hence, 3) It seems that the definition is not confusing.

I disagree with the logic there, because it's so easy for it to have
confused someone a) without them knowing or b) without them wanting to
display that ignorance.

Do I -know- that invisible pink hippos don't orbit Saturn? It just seems
pretty likely that they do not, based on reasoning enumerated above.

Given that I disagree with you on point 1, it's unsurprising that I
disagree with the conclusion.

Pace Donald Rumsfeld, the absence of evidence -is- evidence (though not proof) of
absence.

It's evidence, but not particularly strong evidence - whereas I believe
that the evidence of common sense is that overloading terms
unnecessarily (within a context where there is a specified meaning of
those terms) leads to an unnecessarily high potential for confusion. In
this case, I think the potential is great, and you disagree, which is
fine.

I've seen enough people getting confused by relatively clear
descriptions of the type system to want to err on the side of caution.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Dave Sexton]

Hi Mark,

>There is no evidence of anybody's particular level of experience or
knowledge other than the very few people posting

Exactly. There is no actual evidence that anyone was confused by the post.
Hence, any assumption that the post was confusing is a priori, not
empirical.

But you've only addressed half of my point. There is also no evidence that
it helped anyone, so you have no base for your claim.

I was suggesting that we can't know either way, with any degree of
certainty, unless we were to take a poll or something. Therefore, it's best
to be as clear as possible when posting since you never really no who will
be reading it.

As for any OP's level of expertise, what you assume as a respondent may set
the basis for the amount of detail in your reply, but any assumptions made
thereof should by no means allow a reduction in clarity in any form.

>>, and any assumptions you make thereof is a priori, not empirical.

D'oh! :)

;)

>Everybody's needs should be catered to here seeing that it's a public
newsgroup

It is impossible to cater to everyone's needs.

It's not impossible to try.

>and that can't be done accurately and clearly using loose terminology.

What we're arguing about is the definition of "loose." A type theorist
might say that any definition that uses words instead of mathematical
symbols is "loose."

Our [discussion] isn't focused on the definition of "loose". It's quite
obvious to everyone, AFAICT, that the terms used in the original response
aren't C# terms that apply to the subject matter, and therefore can be
considered "loose" within a C# newsgroup.

Regardless, and what I think the actual [discussion] was about, is that you
don't think overloading terms is ambiguous, correct? (I ask regardless of
context, since the point of clarity is to reduce the amount of assumptions
that must be made in order to better understand the written material.)

--
Dave Sexton

[garyusenet]

Very interesting, one day I hope to be able to follow such scholarly
debate.

I'm going to see if I can find that book ' CLR via C# ' in the
bookshops at lunchtime (im in the UK) I haven't tried to find a
programming book in a bookshop before, so I don't know what my chances
of success will be.

If they do not have it in stock i'll order it from Google. But I want
to read it this evening!

You are all very kind,

Gary-

Jon wrote:

Dustin Campbell <du*****@no-spam-pleasedevexpress.comwrote:

I'm going to change my tune now and wisely stop arguing falsehoods. Truthfully,
when I see the phrase "all .NET types are classes", my gut instinct is to
go along with this. However, it really isn't true. The CLI has the notion
of a TypeDef and that is *not* synonymous with a class. A TypeDef can be
a Class, Interface or ValueType but not any combination of the three.

<snip>

Cool. I can stop trying to work out where the spec contradicts itself
in that case :)

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Mark Wilden]

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.comwrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om...

(I'm going to forgo responding to a lot of what you and Dave posted, as it
would only be repetitive.)

I think the difference is that I'm considering a hypothetical newbie,
not a hypothetical idiot. Were you an idiot when you didn't understand
pointers? No - just new to the idea.

I think it would take an idiot not to understand the difference between an
interface in general terms vs. the C# keyword. Not a newbie - an idiot.

When I was a newbie to pointers and MI, I was not an idiot and I didn't do
idiotic things with them. It just took me some time to completely "grok" the
subjects.

BTW, a person who asks about the difference between a type and a class is
not a newbie in my book, nor an idiot. It's a subtle concept (as evidenced
by this very thread) that most newbies wouldn't even bother themselves with.

I disagree with the logic there, because it's so easy for it to have
confused someone a) without them knowing or b) without them wanting to
display that ignorance.

I agree. However, the fact that no one has expressed confusion for those
reasons cannot be called -evidence- that the definition is confusing. The
fact is, there is no such evidence.

>Do I -know- that invisible pink hippos don't orbit Saturn? It just seems
pretty likely that they do not, based on reasoning enumerated above.

Given that I disagree with you on point 1, it's unsurprising that I
disagree with the conclusion.

The hippo conclusion? :)

the evidence of common sense

There's no such thing. Evidence refers to factual phenomena, not thinking
processes.

I've seen enough people getting confused by relatively clear
descriptions of the type system to want to err on the side of caution.

Yeah, it couldn't hurt.

///ark

[Mark Wilden]

"Dave Sexton" <dave@jwa[remove.this]online.comwrote in message
news:uu**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>
Exactly. There is no actual evidence that anyone was confused by the
post. Hence, any assumption that the post was confusing is a priori, not
empirical.

But you've only addressed half of my point.

Your point was that a priori statements were less valuable than those
supported by evidence (if I understood you). I was just pointing out that
your statement was even less supported by evidence than mine.

There is also no evidence that it helped anyone, so you have no base for
your claim.

1) I'm not claiming the definition helped anyone, so this statement isn't
relevant. 2) But in fact the definition did help me.

I was suggesting that we can't know either way, with any degree of
certainty

I'm not seeking certainty, and neither are you or Jon. Nor (just to
forestall a comment I can see coming) should we try.

>, unless we were to take a poll or something. Therefore, it's best to be
as clear as possible when posting since you never really no who will be
reading it.

As I said, it's literally impossible to be "as clear as possible."

As for any OP's level of expertise, what you assume as a respondent may
set the basis for the amount of detail in your reply, but any assumptions
made thereof should by no means allow a reduction in clarity in any form.

This statement just has no meaning. "In any form"??

>It is impossible to cater to everyone's needs.

It's not impossible to try.

Then let's see you "try" to learn French or Russian, if you think it's so
important to cater to everybody. I mean, c'mon. :)

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Mark Wilden <mw*****@communitymtm.comwrote:

<snip>

I'm not sure we're getting anywhere productive - I hope you don't mind
if I pull out of this part of the thread at this point.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Dustin Campbell]

Mark Wilden <mw*****@communitymtm.comwrote:

>
<snip>

I'm not sure we're getting anywhere productive - I hope you don't mind
if I pull out of this part of the thread at this point.

I pulled out awhile ago for the same reason. It has become argument for the
sake of argument.

Best Regards,
Dustin Campbell
Developer Express Inc.

[Mark Wilden]

"Dustin Campbell" <du*****@no-spam-pleasedevexpress.comwrote in message
news:c1**************************@news.microsoft.c om...

>
I pulled out awhile ago for the same reason. It has become argument for
the sake of argument.

Actually, I was wondering what you guys were doing here in the first place.
It was a very silly argument. :)

///ark

[Dave Sexton]

Hi Mark,

Please stop removing large portions of my post when responding to them if
they are still appropriate, which I believe much of my last response was.
It causes the conversations to go in circles. Instead, leave the running
conversations so we can reference each others comments and so the flow of
the conversation is more obvious to readers.

I'll give it one more shot (I see our peers have given up ;)...

>>Exactly. There is no actual evidence that anyone was confused by the
post. Hence, any assumption that the post was confusing is a priori, not
empirical.

But you've only addressed half of my point.

Your point was that a priori statements were less valuable than those
supported by evidence (if I understood you).

No, my point wasn't a pseudo-definition of a priori. There is simply no
evidence either way, so I choose to "err on the side of caution" as well, to
quote Jon :)

I was just pointing out that your statement was even less supported by
evidence than mine.

But according to your logic, the "evidence" in support of your own
statements is actually the same as the "evidence" against you. In other
words, you think that since we have no proof that it wasn't clear to people
that we should just assume that it was (I've quoted you on this below).
Well, if it was absolutely clear to us then we wouldn't be in this
conversation to begin with. Obviously, it's not clear to us even though we
understood what the OP meant. You claim that it was clear to you. So,
according to your logic, the ratio is ~3-1 against you :)

>There is also no evidence that it helped anyone, so you have no base for
your claim.

1) I'm not claiming the definition helped anyone, so this statement isn't
relevant. 2) But in fact the definition did help me.

Mark: "Hence, 3) It seems that the definition is not confusing."

Therefore, it may have been helpful to others as it has helped you, but it
certainly wasn't confusing to anyone - that's what you're implying. If you
don't believe that, then there is absolutely no reason for this
conversation. My point was simple: you can have absolutely no idea who it
has confused or who it has helped except for yourself.

>I was suggesting that we can't know either way, with any degree of
certainty

I'm not seeking certainty, and neither are you or Jon. Nor (just to
forestall a comment I can see coming) should we try.

Actually, I agree with you that we shouldn't try to be certain about whether
people are confused or not, and I don't see why you thought that I wouldn't
have agreed.

I think I've made it quite clear that my vote is for clarity (err on the
side of caution), not try to find out what some random sample of the
population expects from us as volunteers, in terms of clarity. I KNOW that
there are many people with varying levels of skill that read newsgroup
posts. I don't just assume that there is absolutely no confusion in any
given post, as you obviously do from some of your remarks in this thread,
one of which I've quoted above.

<snip>

>As for any OP's level of expertise, what you assume as a respondent may
set the basis for the amount of detail in your reply, but any assumptions
made thereof should by no means allow a reduction in clarity in any form.

This statement just has no meaning. "In any form"??

Yes, information comes in many different forms and clarity is part of them
all. There can be clarity (or lack thereof) in terminology, grammar, sample
code, format, etc.

I'm suggesting that any assumptions that you make about the OP's level of
expertise shouldn't have any affect on the level of clarity that you choose
in your posts, in any of the above forms that I've given as examples. I was
also suggesting that the LOD could vary slightly based on those same
assumptions.

>>It is impossible to cater to everyone's needs.

It's not impossible to try.

Then let's see you "try" to learn French or Russian, if you think it's so
important to cater to everybody. I mean, c'mon. :)

In an English speaking newsgroup?

You're just being ridiculous.

--
Dave Sexton

[Mark Wilden]

"Dave Sexton" <dave@jwa[remove.this]online.comwrote in message
news:OX**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

Hi Mark,

Please stop removing large portions of my post when responding to them if
they are still appropriate, which I believe much of my last response was.

We've been through this before, Dave. You're a "long quoter;" I'm not. Your
original words are easily available, and anyone who's followed the
conversation has already read them anyway. I only quote to provide reference
for what I'm about to say. There's no need to quote parts I don't reply to.

Well, if it was absolutely clear to us then we wouldn't be in this
conversation to begin with.

Nope - that's my whole, entire, complete point. :) The definition was clear
to us - but some of us are worried about what I've been calling
"hypothetical idiots."

Obviously, it's not clear to us even though we understood what the OP
meant.

You're introducing a new wrinkle - that even smart folks would have trouble
with the definition. I think you need to be more careful with your pronouns.

Sorry, I just don't have the energy to respond to more.

///ark

[Dave Sexton]

Hi Mark,

You still haven't addressed some of the concepts that I've tried to explain,
only particular sentences that have limited meaning on their own. You seem
to be perfectly content picking things out of context that you feel are
easily debated, but completely ignore relevant points.

I too would prefer to do more productive things with my time, so I'm going
to finish with this post as well. Thanks for the discussion.

--
Dave Sexton

"Mark Wilden" <mw*****@communitymtm.comwrote in message
news:ug**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

"Dave Sexton" <dave@jwa[remove.this]online.comwrote in message
news:OX**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>Hi Mark,

Please stop removing large portions of my post when responding to them if
they are still appropriate, which I believe much of my last response was.

We've been through this before, Dave. You're a "long quoter;" I'm not.
Your original words are easily available, and anyone who's followed the
conversation has already read them anyway. I only quote to provide
reference for what I'm about to say. There's no need to quote parts I
don't reply to.

>Well, if it was absolutely clear to us then we wouldn't be in this
conversation to begin with.

Nope - that's my whole, entire, complete point. :) The definition was
clear to us - but some of us are worried about what I've been calling
"hypothetical idiots."

>Obviously, it's not clear to us even though we understood what the OP
meant.

You're introducing a new wrinkle - that even smart folks would have
trouble with the definition. I think you need to be more careful with your
pronouns.

Sorry, I just don't have the energy to respond to more.

///ark

[Mark Wilden]

"Dave Sexton" <dave@jwa[remove.this]online.comwrote in message
news:uS**************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>
You still haven't addressed some of the concepts that I've tried to
explain, only particular sentences that have limited meaning on their own.
You seem to be perfectly content picking things out of context that you
feel are easily debated, but completely ignore relevant points.

Obviously, I disagree. Furthermore, I'd appreciate if you would refrain from
personal remarks. This is the C# newsgroup and my level of contentment is
not on-list. K?

///ark

[Dave Sexton]

Hi Mark,

Sure, as long as you agree to discontinue making assumptions about things
I've written after pulling them out-of-context:

>Obviously, it's not clear to us even though we understood what the OP
meant.

You're introducing a new wrinkle - that even smart folks would have
trouble with the definition. I think you need to be more careful with your
pronouns.

--
Dave Sexton

"Mark Wilden" <mw*****@communitymtm.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

"Dave Sexton" <dave@jwa[remove.this]online.comwrote in message
news:uS**************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>
You still haven't addressed some of the concepts that I've tried to
explain, only particular sentences that have limited meaning on their
own. You seem to be perfectly content picking things out of context that
you feel are easily debated, but completely ignore relevant points.

Obviously, I disagree. Furthermore, I'd appreciate if you would refrain
from personal remarks. This is the C# newsgroup and my level of
contentment is not on-list. K?

///ark

[Mark Wilden]

"Dave Sexton" <dave@jwa[remove.this]online.comwrote in message
news:e6**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Sure, as long as you agree to discontinue making assumptions about things
I've written after pulling them out-of-context:

In the spirit of acquiescing to refraining from beating my wife, yes, I
hereby agree. :)

///ark