[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: the zen of SIGPIPE
>> Now consider the inexcusable example of xargs(1).
> I stopped reading as soon as I saw that text.
> If you want to argue that it's wrong, then make an argument that does
> not assume the conclusion that you want to reach.
If you wish to censure jklowden for question-begging, you probably
should first read the argument to make sure that is actually what's
I don't think this was an instance of question-begging. Rather, it was
an instance of stating - with a relatively common bit of rhetoric - one
of the premises of the argument: that the way xargs behaves is wrong.
Indeed, there isn't much argument in the logician's sense; it seems to
me that most of jklowden's post was stating an opinion that certain
behaviours are wrong. The closest thing to an `argument' I saw was the
leap from "this behaviour is wrong" to "this behaviour should be
changed", which isn't a very large leap.
(Also, I got lazy, elsewhere in this thread, and got tripped up by it;
the quote I attributed to Pope is actually from Emerson.)
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Main Index |
Thread Index |