«

Jesse Ziser wrote:

> I'm trying to write a function that takes a very complex variable
> argument list.

Why?

--
"It does not need to take events in their correct order." /Hexwood/

Hewlett-Packard Limited registered no:
registered office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN 690597 England

Richard Heathfield wrote:

> Chris Dollin said:
>
>> Jesse Ziser wrote:
>>
>>> I'm trying to write a function that takes a very complex variable
>>> argument list.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because it isn't there.

Neither is the natural number whose square is 17.

--
"It would have to be enough." /Brokedown Palace/

Hewlett-Packard Limited registered office: Cain Road, Bracknell,
registered no: 690597 England Berks RG12 1HN

Richard Heathfield wrote:

> Chris Dollin said:
>
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>>> Chris Dollin said:
>>>
>>>> Jesse Ziser wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm trying to write a function that takes a very complex variable
>>>>> argument list.
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Because it isn't there.
>>
>> Neither is the natural number whose square is 17.
>
> Wrong. 5x5 is 17 (in base eighteen).

17(base 1 isn't 17.

--
"It would have to be enough." /Brokedown Palace/

Hewlett-Packard Limited registered no:
registered office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN 690597 England

On Jun 4, 2:59 am, Jesse Ziser <d...@spam.die> wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > Chris Dollin said:
<snip>
> >>>>>>> I'm trying to write a function that takes a very complex variable
> >>>>>>> argument list.
> >>>>>> Why?
> >>>>> Because it isn't there.
<snip>
> P.S.:
> I love the fact that the person who started this terribly useful
> subthread was apparently trying to chastise me for doing something he
> saw as pointless.

The second quote above was a very concise/brief/terse 'why?'
in response to "I'm trying to write a function that takes a very
complex variable argument list".
I would not read too much into this, certainly not a judgmental
attitude. How about interpreting it as "What is it that you are
achieving to do?" There is always a chance there are other approaches.
Even if you know no other approach will suffice, other people might
still enjoy pondering a more general problem.

Stijn

Jesse Ziser wrote:

> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Chris Dollin said:
>>
>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chris Dollin said:
>>>>
>>>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris Dollin said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jesse Ziser wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm trying to write a function that takes a very complex variable
>>>>>>>> argument list.
>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>> Because it isn't there.
>>>>> Neither is the natural number whose square is 17.
>>>> Wrong. 5x5 is 17 (in base eighteen).
>>> 17(base 1 isn't 17.
>>
>> Yes, but I didn't /say/ base 18, did I? I said base eighteen.
>>
>> Shall we stop here, before we both get lynched?
>
> Yes.
>
> P.S.:
> I love the fact that the person who started this terribly useful
> subthread was apparently trying to chastise me for doing something he
> saw as pointless.

If you mean me, I asked a perfectly reasonable question; /why?/ are
you trying to write a function that takes a very complex variable
argument list?

I don't see it as pointless; I do see it as needlessly tricky,
but you may be able to show the need. And showing the need may
provoke alternative approaches.

--
"Giving my opinion / to whoever's there." /Wonderland/

Hewlett-Packard Limited registered office: Cain Road, Bracknell,
registered no: 690597 England Berks RG12 1HN