home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++
- Path: netcom.com!milod
- From: milod@netcom.com (John DiCamillo)
- Subject: Re: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly, and the Wicked ...
- Message-ID: <milodDprBA9.FyH@netcom.com>
- Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
- References: <31570B8E.5A12@vmark.com> <4je5rq$7qg@mimas.brunel.ac.uk> <4jes0t$gth@decaxp.HARVARD.EDU> <31630E30.5A02@oma.com> <4kbq3q$1i8@gaia.ns.utk.edu> <JSA.96Apr9131057@organon.com> <RMARTIN.96Apr10133335@rcm.oma.com> <JSA.96Apr11153135@organon.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 16:03:45 GMT
- Sender: milod@netcom16.netcom.com
-
- jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony) writes:
- >In article <RMARTIN.96Apr10133335@rcm.oma.com> rmartin@oma.com (Robert C. Martin) writes:
-
- >> Robert C. Martin (rmartin@oma.com) wrote:
- >>
- >> > : Malloc and new can *always* be made to be deterministic.
-
- [Jon and Matt disagree]
-
- >> You missed my point. new/delete can *always be made* to be completely
- >> deterministic. Consider:
- >>
- >> [example...]
-
- >1. Yes, we (Matt and I) both missed your point (assuming it was the
- > one you are now claiming) - probably because this is not what you
- > said.
-
- Huh? What Robert wrote was perfectly clear both times. For reasons
- unknown (time pressure? the desire to argue on the net?) both you and
- Matt mis-interpreted Robert's post as if it had read
- 'any old malloc can be *used* in a deterministic manner'
- instead of
- 'it is possible to *make* a deterministic malloc'
-
- >2. You seem to miss the fact that in my message I state the very point
- > you are now making.
-
- So then you two have nothing to argue about, I guess. Good.
-
- --
- ciao,
- milo
- ================================================================
- John DiCamillo Fiery the Angels Fell
- milod@netcom.com Deep thunder rode around their shores
-