clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >   That's not what you said in your original post. You made absolutely no
> > mention of "it's impossible to do without modifying the amount of parameters
> > taken by the macro". You just said it was impossible because of some
> > derivative which would have to be calculated. Your arguments were incorrect.

> No, they were not. They were just based on assumptions that you failed to grasp.
> So you've been trying hard to troll your way out (and still are), trying not to
> lose your face about it.

> Admit it: You understood bullshit, so you wrote bullshit. Happens to the best of
> us.

  You are being ridiculous. Maybe you should reread what I wrote and what
you wrote?

  You never mentioned a single word about it being impossible given the
requirement that the library interface must not be changed. You only talked
about calculating derivatives and that it must be done "in SDL" (you still
didn't specify anything about macro parameters, only "in SDL"). I wasn't
talking about preserving any macro parameters either. Only in your last
post did you mention anything at all about this arbitrary requirement.

  But hidden inside all your ranting is an indirect admission that it indeed
*is* possible to calculate the tangent of the spline accurately using SDL.
You have just now changed your claim from a generic "impossible" to a more
specific "impossible without changing the macro calling parameters".

  So you might not admit it directly, but you are conceding that I was not
mistaken.

> It has always been about a library macro. Changing interfaces of library macros
> that must be expected to be in widespread use is never an option.

  Now it's you who is sidetracking with bullshit. You never mentioned a
single word about interface changes being the main obstacle. You are only
coming up with that stuff now.

  Besides, the very claim "changing interfaces is never an option" is
bullshit in itself, but unrelated to this.

> My mistake,
> admittedly, was probably in assuming that you were aware of this.

  Aware of what? That you were talking about not changing the macro
interface from the very beginning? Even if that's the honest truth,
you certainly didn't mention anything about it.

> That mistake doesn't change a iota of the fact that with the given interface,
> fixing the macro is impossible. Fundamentally.

  You should have said that in your first post.

> And calling me a *liar* - mind you, that's a word usually reserved for people
> *deliberately* telling nonsense - is *way* over the top. It would be even if I
> had been mistaken.

  I didn't call you a liar. Reread that post of mine again, with thought.

  Besides, it was you who started sarcastic namecalling, not me.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message