Re: Ambiguities in VRML-Syntax

J Gwinner/VisNet, I ([email protected])
05 Dec 95 17:27:51 EST


Whoops! Here's to proofesading when sending:

>> Besides, the IF statement will compile much smaller than the multiplication
>> (even under an optimizing compiler).

I meant 'Faster' which is of course, a much different thing than smaller.
Sorry!

However, I think the list NEEDS TO TAKE A VALIUM. It's a very minor point. I
think generally you understood the point I was making.

The important thing is the language, and I believe specifying TRUE and FALSE as
the way to go, not assuming what constants will espresent these numbers.

Now, as far as:
>>Take a class on it and try again!<<
This is unprofessional and petty.

I've built CPU's from the ground up. I don't mean wired up CPU's, I mean
designed the machine code, and implemented it in silicon. Can you say the same?
Oh, and this was after taking Graduate level courses as a Junior. Go take your
valium, and call back when you're rational.

== John ==


  • Next message: John Sheppard: "Re: Your comments to me"
  • Previous message: J Gwinner/VisNet, I: "Re: Ambiguities in VRML-Syntax"
  • Maybe in reply to: Chet Murphy: "Ambiguities in VRML-Syntax"
  • Next in thesad: jjc: "Re: Ambiguities in VRML-Syntax"