From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?B?xaB0xJtww6FuIE7Em21lYw==?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] loop over headlines in active region Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 17:26:43 +0200 Message-ID: <87zkid3ff0.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87obzpl3ec.fsf@gnu.org> <1314246334-5053-1-git-send-email-dmaus@ictsoc.de> <87d3ftiz11.fsf@gmail.com> <87zkitabb4.wl%dmaus@ictsoc.de> <87bouw404u.fsf@gmail.com> <87obyu4awt.wl%dmaus@ictsoc.de> <877h5i3tbc.fsf@gmail.com> <87bout7nv1.wl%dmaus@ictsoc.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:37728) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R233X-0005No-GC for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:31:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R233T-00039n-AI for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:31:51 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f41.google.com ([209.85.161.41]:53999) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R233S-00039W-RI for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:31:47 -0400 Received: by fxg9 with SMTP id 9so3148815fxg.0 for ; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 08:31:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87bout7nv1.wl%dmaus@ictsoc.de> (David Maus's message of "Fri, 09 Sep 2011 17:10:42 +0200") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: David Maus Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 17:10:42 +0200 David Maus wrote: > At Fri, 09 Sep 2011 12:26:31 +0200, > =C5=A0t=C4=9Bp=C3=A1n N=C4=9Bmec wrote: >>=20 >> Still, I'd rather we stuck to the point and expressed ourselves in a way >> that doesn't imply the other side is either an idiot ... > > Your message simply repeated my conclusion: Yes, the problem of > referencing a free variable in the macro expansion does not apply in > this case. Yes, I should base decisions on valid arguments (Who > shouldn't?). Yes, the fact that I refrained from implementing it as a > macro indicates that I wanted to implement it as a macro in the first > place. > > Repeating and stating the very, very obvious is one way to call > someone an idiot. It's not. (One way to call someone an idiot is saying "You're an idiot". If you somehow understood any of my emails as implying you're an idiot, then I'm sorry. It was definitely not intended.) The reason I asked (I didn't actually repeat anything, and it's all apparently still far from obvious, at least to me) is that I'm confused: You say "I didn't implement is as a macro, because A". Now we both agree that A is an invalid argument. Given that you now also confirmed you did want to implement it as a macro in the first place, I would expect that either you do implement it as a macro, or provide a valid argument for not doing so. Maybe I really am too dense, but the hitchhiker quotation didn't help. --=20 =C5=A0t=C4=9Bp=C3=A1n