Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Anyone ever used vector<bool> ?
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 05:19:51 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <86k0ak2vx4.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <t4rh06$1jlv$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t53lh5$rv8$1@dont-email.me> <t53vrg$fvm$1@dont-email.me> <t55bbv$1vbf$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t55hub$f9f$1@dont-email.me> <t565q5$10ln$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5677q$fuu$1@dont-email.me> <t5albt$2g3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jds7siF965aU1@mid.individual.net> <t5bced$16o3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5bdjm$v7i$2@dont-email.me> <t5bes1$fgp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t5ds3o$667$2@dont-email.me> <t5e8l9$gar$1@gioia.aioe.org> <423b2f62-20d0-4578-a047-a4c2b03d917fn@googlegroups.com> <t5kh7g$i7n$2@dont-email.me> <t5m1a7$nfc$1@dont-email.me> <t5n8mv$q1m$1@dont-email.me> <t5ntkn$t4n$1@dont-email.me> <86sfpa3l94.fsf@linuxsc.com> <t5s9ff$95m$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0161277cd888cf27dddddc87a0dfb7f9"; logging-data="11740"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18gO/OZXpBzf38or8WYnoCdwc/NpSZ7Ztw="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1wi5UWANRndBTDdMpg4AMwK5gbU= sha1:Og9V0V8CUEkX4ZJFliziVCGTxTE=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:84147

"Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> writes:

> On 15 May 2022 16:48, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 14 May 2022 05:46, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/22 12:34, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 13 May 2022 04:53, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>> That's covered by the second option.  Just because the
>>>>>> specification allows size() to be O(N) doesn't meant that
>>>>>> it's required to always involve O(N) operations.
>>>>>
>>>>> By that logic it can be described as O(n^2 ).
>>>>
>>>> You misunderstand.  This isn't a description.
>>>>
>>>>> And it's within the formal definition of big O notation.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, using it that way would be very misleading so it's not
>>>>> done;  there is an understanding that the big O communicates
>>>>> something useful to know, whereas the way you used it it
>>>>> communicated a falsehood.
>>>>
>>>> Since it's not a description, it can't be a false description,
>>>> either.  It's a specification.  Standard specifications can
>>>> neither be false, nor true.  A given implementation either meets
>>>> the specifications, or it doesn't.  The specifications might be
>>>> impossible to meet, but that's a different matter entirely from
>>>> truth or falsity.
>>>>
>>>> Whenever the standard specifies the complexity of an operation,
>>>> an implementation that has a lower complexity is always allowed.
>>>> In particular, if the standard specifies O(N), an implementation
>>>> that sometimes takes O(1) time, and sometimes takes O(N) meets
>>>> that specification.  An implementation that took O(N^2) time
>>>> would not.
>>>
>>> That's a meaningless response.
>>
>> James's response is not meaningless.  It is a bit sloppy in
>> places in how it uses big-O notation, but it is not meaningless.
>> If you have trouble understanding what he means I suggest asking
>> a question.
>
> You know that I have no trouble understanding the literal meaning.

I don't know what kinds of statements you might have trouble
understanding.  My comment was only about James's statements,
not about whether you understood them.

> It's meaningless drivel, though.
>
> If you don't understand that, then any contribution you make here
> is just more noise.

Since I don't think his statements are meaningless I wouldn't
call them meaningless drivel.  Apparently you mean something
different by the phrase than how I would normally read it.

>>> I guess by design.
>>
>> It's hard to see this comment as anything but a gratuitous
>> insult.  Heaven know I don't always agree with what James has to
>> say, but he is not someone given to making statements that are
>> deliberately meaningless, and I certainly believe he did not
>> do so in this instance.
>
> Your opinion of his preference in argumentation does very little
> to add meaning to what he wrote;  rather the opposite.
>
> The natural interpretation of James' remark is an attempt to
> obscure and hide that he earlier misled or failed to consider a
> possibility, namely that of a cached list size, by posting a
> stream of literally true meaningless nonsense, and for your
> remark, that you failed to understand both the earlier exchange
> and the beyond-the-end obfuscation attempt.

I'm sorry you didn't find my comments more helpful.