> Well I am sorry that I assumed that you were trying to argue
against
> what I actually said, but they only way I could relate it to my
> position was the assumption that you wanted to deny that
> synchronisation problems COULD happen.
Please try and read what I actualy write, rather than what you'd rather argue against.
> So tell me why is it wrong to split up sequences of actions to
avoid
> synchronisation problems ?
There's nothing wrong with it, I've never said there was. I even said explicitly, in the post you were replying to, that compund actions "may not always be apropriate". I even offered support to you against Roderick on this point in an earlier post (Post #16467):
"I kind of agree with Paul's counter with the "jumping over the wall"(or was it hedge?) example from the book."
Admittedly I didn't specificaly mention timing issues, but since that's what you were talking about I took that as being implicit.
> And *I* didn't start swearing after your last reply, where you
> replied to half a paragraph while completely ignoring the first
half.
I may not explicitly reply to everything you say, but I don't ignore it. I read it, digest it and try to factor it into my replies.
> > There may be circumstances where they are not appropriate,
> >but the standard rules handle them prefectly well.
>
> And how exactly does that contradict anything I said ?
Why does it have to? I'm sorry, is the possibility of us saying something we can both agree on completely excluded? In trying to find common ground, am I completely wasting my time? Is the only allowable kind of post an argumentative one?
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail