Re: Maintain list of attached event handlers (.Net 1.1)

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:06:42 -0700, Armin Zingler <az.nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

As you are not even open to my attempts for an objective explanation of the
situation - which I tried with my VB p-code

Not only am I open to those attempts, I used them to point out to you the fallacy in your argument. Claiming that I am "not even open" to your approach is a non-starter and demonstrably false, as I have at every step of the way been happy to discuss the issue in whatever context you've offered.

- the alternatives, their costs
and of why we disagree, I start thinking you are too narrow-minded for a
further discussion. This shall not be my problem anymore.

You have chosen a particular design and refuse to consider the possibility that a different one might be better, and _I_ am the one who is "too narrow-minded"? That's funny!

I don't know why you are not able to accept that we think different, that
we evaluate situations differently,

If by that you mean that I evaluate the situation based on concrete, objective criteria, while you are unable to state what your actual design goals are, then yes...we do evaluate situations differently.

that we call different situations (un)acceptable,

I haven't called any situation "unacceptable". What I have done is point out your failure to _explain_ why you consider a particular situation "unacceptable".

that we consequently decide different,

Yes, I am deciding using objective measures while you appear to be using intuition. A classic Meyes-Briggs personality conflict.

and that we have
a different understanding of logic and clean programming,

Two people cannot have a "different understanding of logic". One can understand logic while another does not, but logic is inherently rigorous and not open to subjective differences of understanding.

Since I have publicly stated the basis and analysis behind my logic, while you have not done so, I think it's pretty clear here that I understand logic. I leave the rest of the conclusion to the reader.

and we even
use different words (that are well understood in my native language,
sorry) for the same thing.

I use the words that match those used by Microsoft in their .NET documentation. You use terminology that you made up. However, whatever the case, differences in terminology have NOTHING to do with _this_ thread. I understand that you are still sore about being chastised for misusing the word "catch", but you need to get over it. And it has nothing to do with this thread.

Pete
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: allocate array element inside global object?
    ... the "Variable object" vanish from the new terminology. ... Javascript is a language that is defined in terms of the expected behaviour; it is required to behave as if ... ... That makes understanding the "as if .. ... The bottom line is that nobody will gain a good understanding of the language without some familiarity with the spec, so where a good understanding is the aim starting sooner means arriving sooner. ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: Got dem 4-pin mike plug blues, baby!
    ... Andrew, you're making a big, big fuss to argue a trivial ... point about terminology and not a major point of understanding. ...
    (uk.radio.amateur)
  • Re: returning values from a class?
    ... You are confused about terminology. ... You should post the code that is causing ... then people might have a better understanding of what your ...
    (comp.lang.cpp)
  • Re: M Audio Microtrack 2 input levels
    ... Or at least to my understanding of the terminology. ... can connect a CD player to it. ... It amazes me, too. ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
Loading