Re: REPRESENT revisited
- From: "Ed" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:19:15 +1000
"Anton Ertl" <anton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> "Ed" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >"Anton Ertl" <anton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> "Ed" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> >"Anton Ertl" <anton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> REPRESENT is apparently modeled on the Unix function ecvt(). Unix
> >> also has a function fcvt(), which is better for output in fixed-point
> >> format. Maybe we should have such a word in Forth, too; however, it's
> >> not REPRESENT.
> >Why not write up the proposal?
> Yes, once I have written up all the other proposals that are more
> important IMO.
Do it now. You obviously felt strongly enough about the issue
to launch such a blatant attack on my proposal then perhaps you
should follow it through to the end?
Had this been the only or first time I would have let it pass but
unfortunately it has become a pattern.
This is not a moderated newsgroup and you are not "Forth's
policeman" whose job it is to quash any ideas other than your own.
No wonder people eventually stop responding your criticisms.