Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: two's complement idea Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 07:19:40 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 47 Message-ID: <86eet66kcj.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <86tv7dcfxr.fsf@linuxsc.com> <8636e7bvog.fsf@linuxsc.com> <86o8wk3zef.fsf@linuxsc.com> <8ef21e91-6984-44d1-8585-568b245c5924@googlegroups.com> <8636cm4n6l.fsf@linuxsc.com> <70e7d1bf-c994-49f4-bad4-15f386b8adca@googlegroups.com> <86imlegjnx.fsf@linuxsc.com> <86muahjf37.fsf@linuxsc.com> <276f4fb9-bf3e-4e61-aee1-43afd7466630@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b8d048feb5cbf1a44d80a9279d4cb30f"; logging-data="19783"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Xp1KMxlqd+5/0gcvjdYqPkueGQvbXzfA=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:SGMeKirF0PycLWiEtGMwyjlvo3A= sha1:cjaK9SkbJ3MvRVxOAth3ws+jaok= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:72753 James Kuyper writes: > On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 5:09:42 AM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Tiib writes: >> >>> On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 17:08:45 UTC+2, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> >>>> Tiib writes: >>>> >>>>> On Saturday, 11 January 2020 06:44:28 UTC+2, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>>> Your comments are not really about macros but about how various >>>>>> people misuse macros. Any language feature can be misused. >>>>>> My question is about macros, not about people who misuse them. >>>>> >>>>> Programmer who is ordered to write software for platform where he >>>>> can not avoid wasting workdays into dealing with that misuse of >>>>> feature by platform vendors still can not avoid disliking the >>>>> feature that allows such annoying misuses. Especially in places >>>>> where usage of inline functions, templates or constants would >>>>> be as simple but would not cause the issues existence of whose >>>>> you dismiss. >>>> >>>> That may be interesting but it doesn't address the question >>>> I was asking. >>> >>> Your question was "Why do C++ fans hate the C preprocessor so much?". >> >> Yes, and your responses don't speak to that question. They do >> explain why you don't like how some people use macros, but >> nothing about the macros themselves. My question is about >> reactions to the preprocessor (and macros in particular), not >> about reactions to how people might misuse it. Do you not >> understand the difference? > > Do you don't understand that he considers that the way they invite > misuse, might be precisely the thing that he finds objectionable about > macros? [...] Please understand this: Your understandings are not my understandings. Your motivations are not my motivations. Your goals are not my goals. Your assumptions about meaning and communication do not match my own. I have the impression that your question is meant to be rhetorical. Mine was not: it was asked as just a question, nothing more.