Adam Miles wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> I regret having made a mistake in assuming the "Test" method in the
> spec was the same (or at least very similar) to the one that will
> actually be used. Given the spec and "Test" class make no mention of
> maintaining the unsorted order of the array "ia", I assumed it would
> be fair to say that changing it was not outside the guidelines laid
> down. Given that you've said my comments were "substantially
> incorrect", this can only mean that "ia" does have to be preserved? If
> this is correct then it would be wise having seen the discussion on
> the forum, to reply to it directly.

Thank you Adam for your thoughts. The method 'bsort' is a representation
of a (mathematical) function, and as such has no side effects. This
should be sufficient a specification for you to ensure that no possible
corruption of any data can occur. It is thus not appropriate for me to
comment on what may or may not happen ti 'ia'. Your work should be
'safe' in the (non concurrent) sense that you make no unwarranted
assumptions about how ia, oa, or ns are used beyond that given in the
specification.

>
> It does, however, appear to have been my suggestion that "The spec
> doesn't say to preserve ia, so if you don't do it, then he has no
> comeback to start marking people down." you took a considerable amount
> of offence to. Here I was simply making the point that implementing
> features that are not listed in the specification is something we've
> been told not to do.

Thank you Adam, but not every aspect of good programming practice is to
be given in this assignment. The questions you pose are matters that you
yourxelf should address as part of good programming practice. It is not
my job to list every conceivable thing for you "not to do".

Whether people then choose to do it or not is
> their own prerogative, but assigning extra marks to solutions that do
> things that were not asked for is again something I assumed you, and
> any other lecturer for that matter, would not do. Once again, if this
> is not the case, and you do infact want ia kept constant, then fine,
> but I cannot see that in the spec.
>
> What has confused me is how what I said was construed as both a) "a
> personal insult to" and b) "a gross insult to", your professional
> integrity. It is fortunate you emailed me with your concern because
> upon seeing your post on the forum, I was unable to work out which
> post and to whom you were referring. Upon speaking to other people
> about how they read what I said, no one came to the conclusion that my
> comments were anything other than an opinion on how coursework in
> general should be marked – according to the specification. Whether it
> was the word "comeback" or simply the general tone of what I said I am
> unsure, however I cannot help but think that it was the wording rather
> than my sentiments that insulted you most.

Your comment "... he has no comeback to start marking people down" is a
publicly expressed view that I mark people down. This may be acceptable
parlance in other newsgroup arenas, but is totally unaccpetable
discourse in acadaemia. I am afraid that I have seen this behaviour many
times before. Please empathise with any person who might be facing
difficulty with this assignment. Your comment is a very negative remark
upon the module organiser they have to trust to mark their work.

>
> It also has to be said I was surprised at your reaction to what was,
> at least in the most part, a fairly productive thread. Your demand
> that we (the students) cease discussing the coursework both on the
> forum and "anywhere else" surprises me given the widespread acceptance
> and use other lecturers within DCS have shown the forums. I would have
> thought it better that questions, however trivial or "misleading" were
> aired on a "Warwick Forums" forum than, as undoubtedly will happen, on
> some other forum/means of discussion that you have no access to.

Again Adam, this is a culture clash between academic and other
discourse. Many more people read the Forum than contribute to it, and
the assertions about the assignment are highly speculative, and mostly
flawed. This, as module organiser, I wish to protect weaker students
notto see.

>
> After an initial feeling of anger towards your reply both on the forum
> and email, both (in my opinion) tantamount to insults against my own
> integrity and character, I hope my belated reply causes you no further
> offence. I apologise that it has taken such a lengthy reply to address
> all the issues that I felt needed discussing, however I feel
> everything above needed to be said.

Thank you Adam, I do appreciate your reply. The matter is now closed,

       Steve
>
> Adam Miles
>