From: Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@...>
Date: 2011-06-17T00:58:33+09:00
Subject: Re: RFC - One word alias for require_relative

2011/6/16 Matt Harrison <iwasinnamuknow@genestate.com>:
>
> You don't seem to understand that you are arguing against the descriptive
> nature of the "require_relevant" method name, yet in your own words above
> you use those two words to describe it. This in itself proves that the
> method name works, is sensible and suitably descriptive.

On Ilias:

"[Ilias] soon started posting long tirades where he `proved' that the
CL standard requires various behaviour, while completely ignoring the
detailed rebuttals of his `proofs'. An example is the long series of
articles where he `proves' that merely copying the syntax of #\( and
#\) to, say #\[ and #\] should cause [ ... ] to be legal syntax,
despite multiple explanations by four or more people of why this
cannot work. He has also a number of other strange ideas, mostly
syntactic in nature - for instance he doesn't like the . in
dotted-list syntax, and doesn't understand how the , unquoteing syntax
works, and has argued, again, that the standard implies things that
mean that no implementation is conforming."

And:

"He is obsessed by the minutiae of syntax and apparently uninterested
in actually writing programs - he needs to invent some `perfect'
language before he can do anything, and he's starting with the syntax.
It seems quite likely that he's just trying to avoid doing anything at
all by endlessly fiddling with syntax."

Now *that* sounds familiar, doesn't it?

From: http://www.tfeb.org/lisp/mad-people.html

To cut a long story short: Ilias can't program, won't program, and is
a liability to everyone, particularly his "clients". Until proven
otherwise, Ilias claimed experience in coding is n x 1 year of actual
experience, if that.

-- 
Phillip Gawlowski

A method of solution is perfect if we can forsee from the start,
and even prove, that following that method we shall attain our aim.
               -- Leibnitz