Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #175828 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-09-18 01:21 +0300 |
| Last post | 2023-09-18 07:21 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 195 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-18 01:21 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-18 01:23 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-09-18 00:32 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-09-18 10:55 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-18 13:40 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 06:02 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-18 17:10 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "comp.lang.c" <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 16:47 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-19 09:25 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 02:57 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 12:31 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 03:54 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-19 16:54 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 12:33 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 14:56 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-09-19 13:43 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-09-18 12:49 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-23 19:10 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-09-17 17:17 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-09-18 11:53 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-18 16:55 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-09-18 15:54 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-18 18:10 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-18 19:36 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-18 19:55 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-18 21:57 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 14:00 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-18 21:26 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 15:55 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-19 09:33 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-18 21:59 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-18 22:01 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-09-18 22:16 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 15:51 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-18 22:59 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 16:04 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 16:19 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 16:24 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 16:44 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 17:37 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-19 09:41 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-19 10:12 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-19 17:10 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-19 22:22 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 15:35 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-19 22:44 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-20 12:55 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 14:07 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-09-19 00:13 -0400
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-19 09:57 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-19 16:37 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-19 16:55 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 15:16 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-18 20:31 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 14:03 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 14:04 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-09-18 22:26 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 15:59 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-09-19 00:37 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 12:26 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-18 17:15 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-19 11:00 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-23 17:01 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-23 16:35 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-23 19:13 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-25 10:38 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-23 19:05 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-23 18:45 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-23 14:24 -0400
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-09-24 17:05 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-24 23:26 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-25 08:43 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-25 11:51 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-25 15:40 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-25 18:56 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-25 11:03 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-25 19:53 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-25 11:55 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-25 20:08 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-25 21:29 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-25 12:42 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-25 21:11 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-26 08:55 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 00:22 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 15:03 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-26 14:37 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-26 14:57 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-26 17:21 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-26 13:49 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2023-09-26 13:57 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-26 17:14 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2023-09-26 14:27 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-09-26 15:22 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2023-09-26 17:45 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-26 17:10 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 08:29 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-27 11:04 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 03:37 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-27 17:03 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 08:35 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-27 18:52 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 10:46 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-27 20:26 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 11:45 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-27 21:19 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 16:34 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-09-28 01:11 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-27 19:32 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 17:12 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-28 01:49 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 17:53 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-28 11:21 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Psychedelics Haven <psychedelicshaven@gmail.com> - 2023-09-28 04:01 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-28 16:56 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-09-28 07:15 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-28 18:38 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-28 21:47 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-29 01:45 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-29 10:38 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-29 14:33 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 12:10 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 05:28 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-29 15:19 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-29 15:18 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-10-01 02:18 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-09-28 18:04 -0700
[OT] missing evidence (Was: Do you insist on const-correctness?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-09-29 02:31 +0100
Re: [OT] missing evidence (Was: Do you insist on const-correctness?) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-09-28 21:02 -0700
Re: [OT] missing evidence (Was: Do you insist on const-correctness?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-09-28 21:48 -0700
Re: [OT] missing evidence (Was: Do you insist on const-correctness?) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-09-28 22:33 -0700
Re: [OT] missing evidence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-09-29 16:52 +0100
Re: [OT] missing evidence Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 18:19 -0700
Re: [OT] missing evidence Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-30 13:06 +0300
Re: [OT] missing evidence David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-30 17:30 +0200
Re: [OT] missing evidence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-10-01 00:33 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-28 17:13 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-29 00:50 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 14:19 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 14:21 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 16:29 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 16:32 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-28 21:24 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-27 23:05 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 14:18 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-26 16:57 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-26 16:40 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-26 18:46 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-27 11:37 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-27 15:13 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-27 13:32 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-27 19:00 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-09-28 01:34 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-28 10:08 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-28 10:37 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-28 14:13 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-09-28 13:50 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-28 16:37 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-09-28 14:46 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-27 11:23 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-27 11:42 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-27 15:27 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 06:44 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-27 17:56 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-27 22:12 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-27 23:53 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-28 16:25 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-28 17:00 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-09-30 09:58 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-10-01 00:41 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-30 22:33 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-10-01 01:50 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-09-30 09:56 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-30 17:42 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-09-30 15:42 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-27 11:19 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-26 20:53 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-26 19:15 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-26 23:05 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-27 01:45 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 19:43 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-27 03:21 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 20:56 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-09-27 10:36 +0100
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-27 03:17 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-27 16:46 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-25 21:16 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-29 00:38 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 10:07 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-30 17:34 +0200
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-09-23 11:57 -0700
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-24 00:07 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-18 02:38 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-09-18 11:07 +0300
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-18 15:24 +0000
Re: Do you insist on const-correctness? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-09-18 07:21 -0700
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
| From | Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-29 12:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vyjGpn5wF7dDNST4+@bongo-ra.co> |
| In reply to | #176719 |
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 14:33:53 +0300 Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> wrote: > The number three, for example, has been prominent in culture > of thousands of years. And not just human culture. 3 was also special to the beings who made Rama. > Think of Trinitiy, of the proverb > "Third time pays for all" -- it is not the second or fourth > time, but always the third -- at least in European and > Russian folklore. We often make three attempts before > giving up, not two, nor four. Neither two or four are so > prominent, which makes three somehow special.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-29 05:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1f0badd4-1144-4e82-a8b4-9533bfecdc72n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #176719 |
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 12:34:08 UTC+1, Anton Shepelev wrote: > David Brown to Anton Shepelev: > > > Did you know that while scientists may write books, and > > some books are mostly factual, writing a book does /not/ > > mean something is established scientific fact? > A book, or more frequently, a paper) is based on research. > A high-quality research, independently repeated by other > scientists and not yet found to be seriously flawed > establishes a scientific fact. Theoreticaly, another > experiment may disprove or correct it any day. > Yes. We have to assume that observations have been made by competent people and not fabricated, for example. You can always present objections to scientific conclusions, but these become less and less tenable as time passes and other work is done which builds on the original work. > > > Did you know that psychology and cognitive sciences are > > amongst the least "factual" of sciences, because it is > > almost never possible to do proper controlled or > > repeatable experiments? > It is hard, but not almost impossible. There have been > wonderfully deep cognitive experiments that gave insights > into brain physiology, such as Benjamin Libet's. > Actually this is completely false. Psychology is considered by some non-psychologists to be very fact light, because most of the observations you can make are so familiar that, unless you had a scientific training (and a good one) you wouldnt realise that in fact they are interesting. For instance we can predict with a very high degree of accuracy that if a group of people are in a room, they will exit via the door and not through the window, as (for the sake of argument) is physically possible. How do you explain that? > > > They do the best they can, but few results rise about the > > level of "possible indication", and almost nothing in the > > field qualifies as "scientific fact" or "scientific law". > I don't think you are right here. A lot of precise results > have been obtained, such as the lower boundary for reaction > time, or knowledge about color perception. > Yes, there are many such results. Very highly repeatable. However we don't know how free will gets into the brain, and whilst we've some idea about how it gets from the brain to the muscles, it's too complicated to describe exactly. So fundamentally psychologists don't understand their subject. > > > Think about situations where you have to deal with long > > strings of digits (such as reference codes when paying > > bills). If there are more than perhaps 4 repeated digits > > in a row, most people have to count them, and with 6 or > > more digits they'll count them several times to be > > confident. So the "magic number" is clearly 4. > This is about readability, as is the grouping of decimal > numbers by three (Malcom's rule of thee!). > > Try rolling two normal dice. You'll identify the total > > spot count immediately, at a glance, without counting or > > adding up. So the "magic number" is clearly 12. > Not at all. It is the limitation of the dice, not of the > thrower. > > You have suggested a number of experiemnts with various > results in each. They do not in any way disprove Miller's > conclusion, but measure different quantities (call them > magic, if you will -- I do not). Nor do people who remember > the sequence of cards from four to six shuffled card stacks > in memory contests. > > It has been pointed out that Malcolm is pretty much beyond > > saving in his beliefs in various "laws" he invents. > > Please do not follow him. > I think you exagerrate about his inventing of "laws", but I > for one told him I did not agree with his argumentation by > appeal to the three dimensions of the Euclicdean space, > which looks more like a coincidence to me. > We know from commonsense that three levels of nesting of parentheses is about the limit. So we can say Maximum three levels of nesting Maximum three levels of indirection Maximum three dimensions in an array. These are all more or less saying the same thing, in different disguises. But the last is the clue. Why are three dimensional arrays easy to visualise, four dimensional arrays not? The answer is completely obvious to anyone who thinks about it for even a moment. > > In fact, I am > not aware of "laws" that he has purely invented and is > following to the letter (or digit). If, for example, some > fundamental algoritym consists of four nested loops, I > do not believe Malcoms with split it into two functions > simply beause it violates the rule of three. There should > be additonal reasons and considerations. > No. I code for other people as well as myself, which is one factor. Then a foolish consistency is the bugbear of little minds. > > The number three, for example, has been prominent in culture > of thousands of years. Think of Trinitiy, of the proverb > "Third time pays for all" -- it is not the second or fourth > time, but always the third -- at least in European and > Russian folklore. We often make three attempts before > giving up, not two, nor four. Neither two or four are so > prominent, which makes three somehow special. Perhaps > Malcom is consciously applying this arhetypal knowledge to > his work in programming: three is an agressive upper bound > on the depth of a hierarchy (to keep it easily perceptible), > and seven -- on the number of things one can comfortably > have in focus simultaneosly while reading code. The latter > is a wild conjecture on my part. It is not something I > consiously rely on. > I read a very good book on numbers which started with the subitising numbers and then worked through countable, representable, and so on numbers, all the way up to infinity. The author then claimed that there are only three orders of infinity, and if we try to define a fourth we will find that in doing so we've redefined the other three so that there are only two. (I'm repeating this parrot fashion, it's beyond my mathematical ability). He then concluded his book by saying that he had come full circle,and we're back to the low numbers. One, two, three, many.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-29 15:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uf6mdp$agpi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #176725 |
On 29/09/2023 13:28, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> We know from commonsense that three levels of nesting of
> parentheses is about the limit.
It depends on how complex your expression is, and how well you can rely
on people knowing the operator parentheses.
Taking a quick look at some codebases, these are the maximum nesting
levels I've found by looking at consecutive (((... or )))... sequences
(it won't spot all instances of a certain level):
BBX and LibJPEG 4
TCC and SQLite 5
Lua 7
My generated C 8
Preprocessed Lua 11
Counts include those belonging to function calls and casts.
> So we can say
> Maximum three levels of nesting
> Maximum three levels of indirection
> Maximum three dimensions in an array.
>
> These are all more or less saying the same thing, in different disguises.
> But the last is the clue. Why are three dimensional arrays easy to
> visualise, four dimensional arrays not? The answer is completely
> obvious to anyone who thinks about it for even a moment.
You're trying to visualise arrays in 3D space, but that is not always
meaningful.
Start with a string, itself a 1D array of characters, representing a
line of text. A array of lines is a page, and an array of pages is a book.
So far that's 3 dimensions. But we could have had words, paragraphs and
chapters within those 3. And we can have shelves, bookcases and
libraries of books.
That's far more than 3 dimensions, and it's quite easy to visual.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-29 15:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uf6mbl$aei2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #176725 |
On 29/09/2023 13:28, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> We know from commonsense that three levels of nesting of
> parentheses is about the limit.
It depends on how complex your expression is, and how well you can rely
on people knowing the operator parentheses.
Taking a quick look at some codebases, these are the maximum nesting
levels I've found by looking at consecutive (((... or )))... sequences
(it won't spot all instances of a certain level):
BBX and LibJPEG 4
TCC and SQLite 5
Lua 7
My generated C 8
Preprocessed Lua 11
Counts include those belonging to function calls and casts.
> So we can say
> Maximum three levels of nesting
> Maximum three levels of indirection
> Maximum three dimensions in an array.
>
> These are all more or less saying the same thing, in different disguises.
> But the last is the clue. Why are three dimensional arrays easy to
> visualise, four dimensional arrays not? The answer is completely
> obvious to anyone who thinks about it for even a moment.
You're trying to visualise arrays in 3D space, but that is not always
meaningful.
Start with a string, itself a 1D array of characters, representing a
line of text. A array of lines is a page, and an array of pages is a book.
So far that's 3 dimensions. But we could have had words, paragraphs and
chapters within those 3. And we can have shelves, bookcases and
libraries of books.
That's far more than 3 dimensions, and it's quite easy to visual.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-10-01 02:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86msx2em5d.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #176719 |
Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> writes: [..concerning "the magic number seven plus or minus two" and other philosophical/psychological musings..] I encourage you to stay out of these long running, meandering threads that have wandered far away from the subject of the C language or programming in C. Besides being untopical, they aren't going to help you get better at writing programs, either in C or in any other language. I know it can be fun to engage in such discussions, but ultimately its a disservice both to yourself and to the group.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-28 18:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4d206a68-d346-41d5-a069-99e5840e5f61n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #176665 |
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 20:47:37 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > On 28/09/2023 17:38, Anton Shepelev wrote: > > Malcolm McLean: > > > >> Another psychological rule is that you can take in seven > >> objects without counting them. > > > > It is not pshychologica rule, but rather an experimentally > > determined established fact from cognitive scence. I had it > > in mind but never mentioned somehow. You beat me to it. > > > It is not a rule at all. It's a myth. > > When I was a kid, these kind of things spread around the playground - > you can only hold 7 bits of information in your mind at a time, you can > count up to but not more than 7 objects in a glance, you can fold a > piece of paper at most 7 times, and so on. Then we grew older and > realised it was all nonsense - it all depends on the person, the > information, the objects and their arrangements, the type of paper. > > Now there is social media to keep adults drenched in this kind of easily > digested urban myth, and lots of people fall for "proof by repeated > assertion" rather than rubbing two brain cells together and thinking > about reality. > > Please put some thought into this, and perhaps a little research, > instead of assuming random things someone once told you are > scientifically established fact. > You can do further experiments to derive more sophisticated rules than the rule of seven. But it's not "all nonsense". Also, remember that I was introducing subitising (the technical term) newly into a discussion about something else. I wasn't posting about subitising itself. So a brief summary is adequate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-29 02:31 +0100 |
| Subject | [OT] missing evidence (Was: Do you insist on const-correctness?) |
| Message-ID | <87cyy1datj.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #176690 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 20:47:37 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >> On 28/09/2023 17:38, Anton Shepelev wrote: >> > Malcolm McLean: >> > >> >> Another psychological rule is that you can take in seven >> >> objects without counting them. > > You can do further experiments to derive more sophisticated rules > than the rule of seven. But it's not "all nonsense". > > Also, remember that I was introducing subitising (the technical term) > newly into a discussion about something else. I wasn't posting about > subitising itself. So a brief summary is adequate. The subitising limit is usually given as four or sometimes five. What is the rule of seven? And do you now have a citation for the "rule of three" in programming? (I say now because you didn't the last time I asked.) -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-28 21:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] missing evidence (Was: Do you insist on const-correctness?) |
| Message-ID | <4ff00167-ade8-41f5-b517-c7e710a2ef45n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #176694 |
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 02:31:51 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 20:47:37 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > >> On 28/09/2023 17:38, Anton Shepelev wrote: > >> > Malcolm McLean: > >> > > >> >> Another psychological rule is that you can take in seven > >> >> objects without counting them. > > > > You can do further experiments to derive more sophisticated rules > > than the rule of seven. But it's not "all nonsense". > > > > Also, remember that I was introducing subitising (the technical term) > > newly into a discussion about something else. I wasn't posting about > > subitising itself. So a brief summary is adequate. > The subitising limit is usually given as four or sometimes five. What > is the rule of seven? And do you now have a citation for the "rule of > three" in programming? (I say now because you didn't the last time I > asked.) > I haven't published anything on the rule of three. Setting up rigorous psychological experiments and collecting the results in a way that is publishable is quite involved. It's not that case that something has to appear in academic literature to be true. If Linus Torvalds and myself independently come to almost the same conclusion, then that's good enough to say that we've an idea which is worth taking further. (Not it is necessarily correct and no-one may disagree, but no one has actually put up any substantive counter-arguments). The maximum for subitising is generally reckoned to be seven. It does depend on circumstances. But under not too contrived circumstances people can tell that there are seven objects without actually counting them. The limit of four or five is the limit at which it can always be done, under any (non-contrived, such as camouflage) circumstances, such as objects of diffeent types and sizes, widely scattered, no patterning at all and so on. Wiki claims that people can be trained to subitise up to fifteen. "In the 1990s, babies three weeks old were shown to differentiate between 1–3 objects, that is, to subitize.[22] A more recent meta-study summarizing five different studies concluded that infants are born with an innate ability to differentiate quantities within a small range, which increases over time. [25] By the age of seven that ability increases to 4–7 objects. Some practitioners claim that with training, children are capable of subitizing 15+ objects correctly."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-28 21:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] missing evidence (Was: Do you insist on const-correctness?) |
| Message-ID | <86ttrdh9ff.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #176701 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: [discussion regarding the so-called "rule of three"] > I haven't published anything on the rule of three. [...] Whatever the merits of your views might be, your comments have essentially zero overlap with the C language. Please take any further discussion of your psychological theories to a forum where they are topical. Thank you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-28 22:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] missing evidence (Was: Do you insist on const-correctness?) |
| Message-ID | <7752743d-2023-463f-a21b-9bf5ad22a46dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #176703 |
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 05:48:22 UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes: > > [discussion regarding the so-called "rule of three"] > > > I haven't published anything on the rule of three. [...] > > Whatever the merits of your views might be, your comments > have essentially zero overlap with the C language. Please > take any further discussion of your psychological theories > to a forum where they are topical. Thank you. > Most C code is required to be read by humans. So these questions like "how many parentheses can I nest?" are highly relevant. People should maybe spend less time querying the underlying pyschology, which is pretty obvious and self-evident, and more time on the implications, I agree there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-29 16:52 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] missing evidence |
| Message-ID | <87pm21ase8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #176701 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 02:31:51 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 20:47:37 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >> >> On 28/09/2023 17:38, Anton Shepelev wrote: >> >> > Malcolm McLean: >> >> > >> >> >> Another psychological rule is that you can take in seven >> >> >> objects without counting them. >> > >> > You can do further experiments to derive more sophisticated rules >> > than the rule of seven. But it's not "all nonsense". >> > >> > Also, remember that I was introducing subitising (the technical term) >> > newly into a discussion about something else. I wasn't posting about >> > subitising itself. So a brief summary is adequate. >> The subitising limit is usually given as four or sometimes five. What >> is the rule of seven? And do you now have a citation for the "rule of >> three" in programming? (I say now because you didn't the last time I >> asked.) >> > I haven't published anything on the rule of three. Of course not. I just asked for a citation. > Setting up rigorous > psychological experiments and collecting the results in a way that is > publishable is quite involved. It's not that case that something has to > appear in academic literature to be true. If there are no published studies, just say so. > If Linus Torvalds and myself independently come to almost the same > conclusion, then that's good enough to say that we've an idea which > is worth taking further. (Not it is necessarily correct and no-one may > disagree, but no one has actually put up any substantive counter-arguments). > > The maximum for subitising is generally reckoned to be seven. It does > depend on circumstances. But under not too contrived circumstances > people can tell that there are seven objects without actually counting > them. The limit of four or five is the limit at which it can always be done, > under any (non-contrived, such as camouflage) circumstances, such > as objects of diffeent types and sizes, widely scattered, no patterning > at all and so on. > > Wiki claims that people can be trained to subitise up to fifteen. So the "rule of seven" covers anything from four to fifteen? (Or are you disputing the papers that claim four of five as the limit?) I note that you acknowledge that circumstances and training have an effect. I wonder if the circumstances that pertain to programming (indentation, layout, operator precedence, common patterns...) as well as the training to be a programmer (mathematics, syntax, parsing...) might have an effect on the currently un-evidenced "rule of three". But really all that's happening here is that you like "rules" and I don't. To that limited extent, there is an element of postmodernism at play here. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-29 18:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] missing evidence |
| Message-ID | <9fae5671-b3da-4c80-a6e3-aecec533f63fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #176745 |
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 16:52:48 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Setting up rigorous > > psychological experiments and collecting the results in a way that is > > publishable is quite involved. It's not that case that something has to > > appear in academic literature to be true. > If there are no published studies, just say so. > I just don't know. I'm not a psychologist. I don't really know what to look for, or whether it's something that someone will definitely have looked at or something that it's unlikely a psychologist would be very interested in (unless asked by a person wanting to design a coding standard, if course). > > > Wiki claims that people can be trained to subitise up to fifteen. > So the "rule of seven" covers anything from four to fifteen? (Or are > you disputing the papers that claim four of five as the limit?) > Four or five is the limit when you impose the rule that the person devising the test can use any non-contrived spatial distribution and selection of elements to subitise. So you could show a cat and a dog and a mouse and ask "how many animals?" and the subject would immediately answer "three". However you couldn't place the mouse halfway in the cat's mouth as though it were eating it. (I think, I haven't actually done that experiment). Seven is the limit when you impose the rule that the person devising the test can't contrive to make the exercise especially easy. As David Brown pointed out, you can subitise up to twelve if the objects are dots on two dice. That would be an example of such contrivance. However placing twelve identical dots in a straight line well within the subject's visual field would not be, but you are of course trying to make the exercise a bit easier. > > I note that you acknowledge that circumstances and training have an > effect. I wonder if the circumstances that pertain to programming > (indentation, layout, operator precedence, common patterns...) as well as > the training to be a programmer (mathematics, syntax, parsing...) might > have an effect on the currently un-evidenced "rule of three". > Yes. That's why I don't impose Torvald's rule of three. I do always lay out my C curly braces so that they are vertically aligned. Which you wouldnt have to do if matching were perceptutally easy. The rule of three is for doing what is the equivalent of subitising for nesting rather than counting. But you don't actually have to take in a function as a whole to understand it. In a procedural language like C at least. > > But really all that's happening here is that you like "rules" and I > don't. To that limited extent, there is an element of postmodernism at > play here. > Well I maybe have broader interests than you. My view is that if you wish to understand the world around you, attempting to devise rules which describe it is helpful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-30 13:06 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] missing evidence |
| Message-ID | <20230930130646.3211dac7e4a8e3034e1b6b9d@gmail.moc> |
| In reply to | #176768 |
Malcolm McLean: > Seven is the limit when you impose the rule that the > person devising the test can't contrive to make the > exercise especially easy. As David Brown pointed out, you > can subitise up to twelve if the objects are dots on two > dice. As David Brown pointed out, you can subitise up to > twelve if the objects are dots on two dice. I for one certainly do not subitise the dots on dice -- I add two small numbers, which is very fast. > However placing twelve identical dots in a straight line > well within the subject's visual field would not be Because then you'd really need to subitise to count them quickly, or be forced to add up twelve unities, or four three's... Then again, Miller's "rule of seven" is not about subitising. -- () ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-30 17:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] missing evidence |
| Message-ID | <uf9eum$vbrl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #176768 |
On 30/09/2023 03:19, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 16:52:48 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> But really all that's happening here is that you like "rules" and I >> don't. To that limited extent, there is an element of postmodernism at >> play here. >> > Well I maybe have broader interests than you. My view is that if you wish to > understand the world around you, attempting to devise rules which describe > it is helpful. I think perhaps you misunderstand the differences between terms like "rules", "guidelines", "patterns", "habits", "laws", "indications", and "preferences". There is no "rule of three", or "rule of seven". Linus Torvalds does not have a "rule of three" regarding nesting, braces, indentations, or anything else. There is no "rule of seven" regarding counting, memory, subitizing, or anything else. It's fine to have a /preference/ for no more than three levels of parenthesis, or a /guideline/ of no more than three levels of indentation (the Linux coding standard doesn't even go that far). It's fine to say experiments show that most people can subitize around 4 or 5 objects placed randomly. It is not a law, or a rule, or a scientific fact - it's a rough value appropriate in some circumstances. Such results can be helpful to know, but they are not rules. It is human nature to look for patterns and rules in the world around us. They help us understanding things, appreciate things, and predict things. A vital part of this - and the part that you seem to be missing - is knowing when such patterns apply, and to what extent. "Bricks fall when you drop them" is a rule, or a law - a scientific fact. "Many people will have to think hard about code with more than three levels of nesting" is a pattern or guideline - not a rule, not a law - because it is very rough and approximate, and varies so much by circumstance. It is also important to be rational about the patterns you see, and understand that they are often coincidence. This applies particularly with small numbers, which turn up a /lot/. Two patterns involving the same small number does not imply any kind of relation between them. Try to be more scientific here, and less dogmatic - consider how accurate a pattern is, how the error distribution looks, what confidence you can have in the pattern, what circumstances are needed for the pattern to work or fail. Then we have something that can be useful as a guideline or recommendation. Don't try to condense it into a religious pontification of absolutes unless it really is an absolute law.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-10-01 00:33 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] missing evidence |
| Message-ID | <87o7hjck2r.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #176768 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 16:52:48 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > Setting up rigorous >> > psychological experiments and collecting the results in a way that is >> > publishable is quite involved. It's not that case that something has to >> > appear in academic literature to be true. >> If there are no published studies, just say so. >> > I just don't know. I'm not a psychologist. OK. Without supporting evidence it's just something you (and maybe other people) like to claim. >> > Wiki claims that people can be trained to subitise up to fifteen. >> So the "rule of seven" covers anything from four to fifteen? (Or are >> you disputing the papers that claim four of five as the limit?) >> > Four or five is the limit when you impose the rule that the person > devising the test can use any non-contrived spatial distribution and > selection of elements to subitise. So you could show a cat and a dog > and a mouse and ask "how many animals?" and the subject would > immediately answer "three". However you couldn't place the mouse > halfway in the cat's mouth as though it were eating it. (I think, I > haven't actually done that experiment). > > Seven is the limit when you impose the rule that the person devising > the test can't contrive to make the exercise especially easy. As David > Brown pointed out, you can subitise up to twelve if the objects are > dots on two dice. That would be an example of such > contrivance. However placing twelve identical dots in a straight line > well within the subject's visual field would not be, but you are of > course trying to make the exercise a bit easier. More un-cited supposed facts that just add to my point that there is no reasonable meaning for the "rule of seven". >> I note that you acknowledge that circumstances and training have an >> effect. I wonder if the circumstances that pertain to programming >> (indentation, layout, operator precedence, common patterns...) as well as >> the training to be a programmer (mathematics, syntax, parsing...) might >> have an effect on the currently un-evidenced "rule of three". >> > Yes. That's why I don't impose Torvald's rule of three. Ah, so maybe you could cite that? At least there might be some explanation from him. I can't find anything, but you must have seen it somewhere. > I do always lay out my C curly braces so that they are vertically > aligned. Which you wouldnt have to do if matching were perceptutally > easy. The rule of three is for doing what is the equivalent of > subitising for nesting rather than counting. But you don't actually > have to take in a function as a whole to understand it. In a > procedural language like C at least. So you claim without any evidence. But anyway even you don't follow it. And there are only limited situations it applies to. Everyone should note that this is what you mean be a "rule". >> But really all that's happening here is that you like "rules" and I >> don't. To that limited extent, there is an element of postmodernism at >> play here. >> > Well I maybe have broader interests than you. My view is that if you wish to > understand the world around you, attempting to devise rules which describe > it is helpful. I admit I can't work them all out for myself so I read books and published papers by experts who know more than I do. That's why I ask for citations and references. There is no rule of seven (in perception) or three (in programming) that helps to describe the world. Most aspects of the world (people and their actions, in particular) are far more varied than such banal rules could possibly describe. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-28 17:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20230928100102.152@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #176651 |
On 2023-09-28, Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> wrote:
> Your argumentation apart, I tend to agree with your
> conclusion. I freely use nesting levels up to three, but
> beyond that I start having compunctions and seconds
> thoughts, and reviewing the functioon to check again if it
> cannot be split up. The rule of three is not is not a hard
> rule, but is there alright.
If you split up a function into pieces that are only called
once, for the sake of reducing nesting, it is not a given that
it will improve readability or maintainability.
The function becomes more abstract. Readability now depends on how
well-defined those subtasks are if considered on their own, and in
relation to that, how well they are named. Someone following the code
carefully, looking for bugs, has to jump around now between the
definitions and calls.
In a language in which you don't have nested functions, like the
standard dialect of C, splitting a function into helpers can create a
problem of delocalization of state. Whereas the original nested
statements operated on a common set of local variables, the helper
functions don't have access to that. You either have to pass the
entire state into the helpers by parameters, and then accept new
states that are returned, or pass pointers to individual variables as
arguments, or gather the state into a structure ("object based"
programming).
Any of these could affect readability in either direction.
That object-based/object-oriented approach has been heavily flogged over
the last forty years or so.
If all the state variables are members of a structure, and there are
only a few locals (sometimes none), then breaking up is a lot more
casual. Oh, let's move this block into a method. Copy, paste, done.
All the references are to members, they work there just as they did
here.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
NOTE: If you use Google Groups, I don't see you, unless you're whitelisted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-29 00:50 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20230929005051.835ad2473eb1a5e3124a579f@gmail.moc> |
| In reply to | #176660 |
Kaz Kylheku:
> If you split up a function into pieces that are only
> called once, for the sake of reducing nesting, it is not a
> given that it will improve readability or maintainability.
>
> The function becomes more abstract. Readability now
> depends on how well-defined those subtasks are if
> considered on their own, and in relation to that, how well
> they are named. Someone following the code carefully,
> looking for bugs, has to jump around now between the
> definitions and calls.
Yes, this kind of refactoring can be both hard and
unrewarding, so that havng an extra nesting level is better.
> You either have to pass the entire state into the helpers
> by parameters, and then accept new states that are
> returned, or pass pointers to individual variables as
> arguments, or gather the state into a structure ("object
> based" programming).
>
> Any of these could affect readability in either direction.
>
> That object-based/object-oriented approach has been
> heavily flogged over the last forty years or so.
>
> If all the state variables are members of a structure, and
> there are only a few locals (sometimes none), then
> breaking up is a lot more casual. Oh, let's move this
> block into a method. Copy, paste, done. All the
> references are to members, they work there just as they
> did here.
It often happens that the object-based way requires the
creatio of heterogenous nonsenscial structure, or a code
small (whose name I forget) that consists in passing in way
more than is needed. This may be the cause the flogging you
mention.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-27 14:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <uf269e$39oal$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #176548 |
On 9/27/2023 10:46 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 17:53:10 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >> On 27/09/2023 17:35, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 16:03:35 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 27/09/2023 12:37, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>> >>>>> (Nesting, indirection, and dimensioning are all related to each other). >>>> No, they are not. >>>> >>> You haven't thought this through, have you? >> Yes, I have. >> >> I mean, obviously if you want to have an n-dimensional array and loop >> through it all, you'll have n levels of nesting, and your array access >> is technically through pointers with n levels of indirection. >> > Exactly. Not exactly a controversial idea, is it? > Nesting, indirection, and dimensioning are all related to each other. > And we can visualise three dimensions easily enough, because we live > in a world with three dimensions of space. To visualise four dimensions, > you have to add time, which makes it a different sort of mental exercise. > > So three is the magic number. Well, I have some 4d fractals that might interest you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-27 14:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <uf26dd$39oal$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #176558 |
On 9/27/2023 2:19 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 9/27/2023 10:46 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 17:53:10 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >>> On 27/09/2023 17:35, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 16:03:35 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >>>>> On 27/09/2023 12:37, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> (Nesting, indirection, and dimensioning are all related to each >>>>>> other). >>>>> No, they are not. >>>>> >>>> You haven't thought this through, have you? >>> Yes, I have. >>> >>> I mean, obviously if you want to have an n-dimensional array and loop >>> through it all, you'll have n levels of nesting, and your array access >>> is technically through pointers with n levels of indirection. >>> >> Exactly. Not exactly a controversial idea, is it? >> Nesting, indirection, and dimensioning are all related to each other. >> And we can visualise three dimensions easily enough, because we live >> in a world with three dimensions of space. To visualise four dimensions, >> you have to add time, which makes it a different sort of mental exercise. Actually, how can time be a dimension in and of itself, when all dimensions have time? 3d beings have time, 4d beings have time, ect... >> >> So three is the magic number. > > Well, I have some 4d fractals that might interest you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-27 16:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <uf2dt8$3arar$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #176548 |
On 9/27/2023 10:46 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 17:53:10 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >> On 27/09/2023 17:35, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 16:03:35 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 27/09/2023 12:37, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>> >>>>> (Nesting, indirection, and dimensioning are all related to each other). >>>> No, they are not. >>>> >>> You haven't thought this through, have you? >> Yes, I have. >> >> I mean, obviously if you want to have an n-dimensional array and loop >> through it all, you'll have n levels of nesting, and your array access >> is technically through pointers with n levels of indirection. >> > Exactly. Not exactly a controversial idea, is it? > Nesting, indirection, and dimensioning are all related to each other. > And we can visualise three dimensions easily enough, because we live > in a world with three dimensions of space. To visualise four dimensions, > you have to add time, which makes it a different sort of mental exercise. > > So three is the magic number. I personally think that time is an interesting form of quantitative "special", and not a dimension as is simply because time exists in every dimension. Is that kind of, fair enough?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web