Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #84323 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-05-29 02:59 +0200 |
| Last post | 2022-06-01 18:39 +0200 |
| Articles | 17 on this page of 157 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 02:59 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-05-29 05:46 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 08:03 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 08:34 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-05-29 01:36 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 10:37 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-05-29 02:09 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 11:16 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-05-29 03:08 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 12:44 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-05-29 16:05 +0300
Re: Wikipedia Freethinker <freethinker@mymail.com> - 2022-05-29 15:19 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 15:27 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2022-05-29 17:26 +0100
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 19:18 +0200
Re: Wikipedia scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-05-29 17:49 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-05-30 00:25 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> - 2022-06-04 13:00 -0400
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 19:19 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 11:48 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-05-30 06:06 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> - 2022-06-04 13:02 -0400
Re: Wikipedia Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2022-05-29 17:18 +0100
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 18:22 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-05-30 06:08 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 04:41 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-05-30 06:06 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-05-30 19:31 +0100
Re: Wikipedia Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-05-30 19:52 +0100
Re: Wikipedia Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-05-31 14:34 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 15:15 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-05-31 18:00 +0100
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 19:06 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-05-31 18:43 +0100
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 19:48 +0200
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-01 09:26 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 09:44 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-06-01 01:47 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 13:53 +0200
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-01 17:05 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 17:06 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-02 04:57 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 07:43 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-02 08:53 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 12:56 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-02 12:46 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 14:56 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-03 04:14 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 06:19 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-03 04:26 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-06-03 14:22 +0100
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 15:34 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 07:24 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-03 14:56 +0000
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 08:06 -0700
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-03 17:30 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 10:37 -0700
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-03 20:33 +0200
Re: Wikipedia scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-06-03 18:59 +0000
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 12:35 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Freethinker <freethinker@mymail.com> - 2022-06-03 23:42 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-06-04 08:10 +0000
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 11:59 -0700
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-04 15:27 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-04 15:31 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-06-03 17:02 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 08:11 -0700
Re: Wikipedia "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 14:23 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 14:58 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-06-04 08:00 -0700
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-02 16:00 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 16:09 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 16:14 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> - 2022-06-04 13:20 -0400
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 19:23 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 04:40 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 14:00 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-02 12:47 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 14:59 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-03 04:17 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 06:20 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-03 04:27 +0000
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-02 16:13 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 10:09 -0700
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-02 22:35 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-03 04:22 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 06:23 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-03 04:28 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 06:35 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-03 05:22 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 07:23 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 22:25 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 07:28 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 22:31 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-03 06:22 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 08:38 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-03 10:14 +0000
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 06:32 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 15:35 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 14:12 -0700
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-03 10:31 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-06-02 19:12 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> - 2022-06-04 13:09 -0400
Re: Wikipedia Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-02 17:54 +0100
Re: Wikipedia Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-06-02 20:40 +0300
Re: Wikipedia Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-02 18:50 +0100
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-03 04:25 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 14:21 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 06:17 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 15:34 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 07:13 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 16:55 +0200
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-01 16:29 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 16:56 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 07:58 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 17:07 +0200
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-01 17:50 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 18:11 +0200
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-01 17:41 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-06-01 17:42 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 09:12 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-06-01 18:35 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 18:36 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-06-01 18:59 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 19:04 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 10:04 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-06-07 08:28 -0700
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-01 21:22 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 13:43 -0700
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-02 10:07 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-06-07 08:21 -0700
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 07:18 -0700
Re: Wikipedia muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-05-31 18:34 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-05-31 19:37 +0100
Re: Wikipedia muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-05-31 18:42 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-05-31 20:00 +0100
Re: Wikipedia muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-05-31 19:19 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-05-31 20:28 +0100
Re: Wikipedia muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-06-01 18:07 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 20:28 +0200
Re: Wikipedia scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-05-31 19:37 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2022-05-31 21:27 +0100
Re: "std::" (was: Wikipedia) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-05-31 21:17 +0100
Re: "std::" (was: Wikipedia) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 06:33 +0200
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-01 09:34 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 05:40 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2022-05-31 17:18 +0100
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 18:25 +0200
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-01 09:38 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 09:46 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 10:16 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 10:21 +0200
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-01 17:13 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 17:15 +0200
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-01 18:12 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 18:18 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 18:39 +0200
Page 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 19:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <A7ulK.73156$5fVf.44541@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #84397 |
muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: >On Tue, 31 May 2022 20:00:41 +0100 >Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >>On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:42:24 -0000 (UTC) >>muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:37:24 +0100 >>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >>> >On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:34:05 -0000 (UTC) >>> >muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:43:40 +0100 >>> >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >>> >> >On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:06:17 +0200 >>> >> >Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >> I would never dictate my programming styles to others. >>> >> >> But Josh does it in a way that you can say, that he >>> >> >> has real mental problems. >>> >> >=20 >>> >> >It isn't a coding style: you are abusing namespaces by actually >>> >> >going against their intended purpose. "using namespace" should >>> >> >only ever be used at function local scope or to inject a >>> >> >namespace into another explict namespace (i.e. *not* global >>> >> >scope). >>> >> >>> >> Horseshit. Thats just your particular style and belief, thousands >>> >> including me would disagree. >>> > >>> >Horseshit? You are simply wrong, it's as simple as that. >>> >>> Whatever. I'll continue to write clear code, you continue to stroke >>> your self important ego. >> >>Ironically using "using namespace" actually results in code that >>is less clear. Your wrongness appears to be fractal in nature. > >Right, because having the visual noise of std:: all over the sodding place >really makes for clear code. > For new code, probably six of one, half dozen of the other. For cases where older C (or C++) code is included in the mix, adding 'using namespace std' can cause potential conflicts (which may go unnoticed if the parameter types match) with existing function names (application or 3rd party library APIs) that are the same as those in the std namespace. Personally, I prefer to prefix the names when used rather than use a blanket using clause. But then I find certain posters style (bonnie and alf mainly) far too verbose and unnecessary - too much like COBOL for my tastes. In a perfect world, perhaps there wouldn't be a need to intermix C and C++, but I've yet to see it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 21:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t75tnj$82u$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84400 |
On 31/05/2022 20:37, Scott Lurndal wrote: > For new code, probably six of one, half dozen of the other. For cases > where older C (or C++) code is included in the mix, adding 'using namespace std' > can cause potential conflicts (which may go unnoticed if the parameter types match) > with existing function names (application or 3rd party library APIs) that are the > same as those in the std namespace. > > Personally, I prefer to prefix the names when used rather than use > a blanket using clause. > > But then I find certain posters style (bonnie and alf mainly) far too > verbose and unnecessary - too much like COBOL for my tastes. > > In a perfect world, perhaps there wouldn't be a need to intermix > C and C++, but I've yet to see it. My employer's standards say put the prefix on all the names. But I'm not going to get into an edit war on Wikipedia about it. Alf's style is quite readable to me, I listen to both of you. Andy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 21:17 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: "std::" (was: Wikipedia) |
| Message-ID | <20220531211705.000000d5@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #84397 |
On 31 May 2022 19:34:18 GMT ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote: > muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: > >Right, because having the visual noise of std:: all over the sodding > >place really makes for clear code. > > Does this refer to "::std" or some local namespace "std"? > So, I hope you see: We need to always write "::std::"! > > Well, in theory I could imagine an editor that shows > you "::std::cout" as "cout" in blue, but writes out > "::std::cout" when you save it to a file. But in practice > no one could write such a complicated editor. > > When typing, you would type "::std::cout ", and then it > would be converted to a blue "cout ", or you could have > some hotkey that toggles blueness when the cursor is in it. For fuck's sake take your medication. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 06:33 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: "std::" (was: Wikipedia) |
| Message-ID | <t76q6r$dj8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84401 |
Am 31.05.2022 um 22:17 schrieb Mr Flibble: > On 31 May 2022 19:34:18 GMT > ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote: > >> muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: >>> Right, because having the visual noise of std:: all over the sodding >>> place really makes for clear code. >> >> Does this refer to "::std" or some local namespace "std"? >> So, I hope you see: We need to always write "::std::"! >> >> Well, in theory I could imagine an editor that shows >> you "::std::cout" as "cout" in blue, but writes out >> "::std::cout" when you save it to a file. But in practice >> no one could write such a complicated editor. >> >> When typing, you would type "::std::cout ", and then it >> would be converted to a blue "cout ", or you could have >> some hotkey that toggles blueness when the cursor is in it. > > For fuck's sake take your medication. Don't you think that people who become upset on such a discussion would rather need medication ? BTW: Josh constantly re-edits my Wikipedia changes under disguise, i.e. only his IP address can be seen. But geo-located he yo can see that the changes come from Canada. So he is fearing some detriments if he would do that under his own name. Maybe I should open a discussion page on the article "DLL Injection" where I should reveal that. I think people closer to Wikipedia could verify that the former changes made under his named nick orgin at the same IP-address. ;-) I've checked some changes he has made under his nick and a lot of changes are like that and show how narrow-minded he is. So his contri- butions are mostly expendable and maybe Wikipedia would kick is named nick if I open an according discussion page.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 09:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t774qd$lvj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84397 |
On 31/05/2022 21:19, muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > > Right, because having the visual noise of std:: all over the sodding place > really makes for clear code. > Put local "using namespace" declarations inside functions (or namespaces) whenever you feel it makes code simpler and clearer. I have nothing against "using" declarations - it's the overly-wide file-scope "using namespace std;" to which I object. It brings huge numbers of identifiers into the global scope, which is rarely a good idea. Namespaces were invented to avoid polluting the global identifier space and to keep identifiers organised - use them as intended. As a general guideline, keep the scope of identifiers as small as practically possible, without getting obsessive. It makes it easier to find out what things really are, because you don't have to search as far, and it minimises the risk of conflicts or mixups.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 05:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t76n3c$jqt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84394 |
Am 31.05.2022 um 20:37 schrieb Mr Flibble: > On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:34:05 -0000 (UTC) > muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > >> On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:43:40 +0100 >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >>> On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:06:17 +0200 >>> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I would never dictate my programming styles to others. >>>> But Josh does it in a way that you can say, that he >>>> has real mental problems. >>> =20 >>> It isn't a coding style: you are abusing namespaces by actually >>> going against their intended purpose. "using namespace" should only >>> ever be used at function local scope or to inject a namespace into >>> another explict namespace (i.e. *not* global scope). >> >> Horseshit. Thats just your particular style and belief, thousands >> including me would disagree. > > Horseshit? You are simply wrong, it's as simple as that. Don't discuss with idiots.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 17:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t75f6n$6f0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84385 |
On 31/05/2022 13:34, Manfred wrote: > >> > > ... and she put it back. > > Someone had anticipated this edit war - which was in fact easy to > predict, given the known issues of the OP. It had to be back because flibble's changes broke the code. He should have inserted std:: wherever necessary to make the code useable. There is no point in removing something without fixing the damage it does without it. The code is for demonstration purposes and so there is no point in being pedantic about the style. The alternative is to put the pseudocode so it satisfies everybody. Professor Knuth always gave pseudocode in his books because he expected people to criticise his coding style.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 18:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t75fhg$82i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84387 |
> The code is for demonstration purposes and so there is no point in being > pedantic about the style. ... It's not for demonstation puposes. There are no clean ways to inject arbitrary code into a Win32-process on the net. And this is mostly clean and you can even debug the code inside the foreign process (I've tried that with WinDbg and supressing IsDebugerPresent() is easy).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 09:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t7752c$qq0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84388 |
On 31/05/2022 18:25, Bonita Montero wrote: >> The code is for demonstration purposes and so there is no point in being >> pedantic about the style. ... > > It's not for demonstation puposes. There are no clean ways to inject > arbitrary code into a Win32-process on the net. And this is mostly > clean and you can even debug the code inside the foreign process > (I've tried that with WinDbg and supressing IsDebugerPresent() is > easy). I haven't looked at the article or the code - I have no interest in Windows programming. But this sounds to me like a recipe that has a single purpose - writing malicious software to attack other programs or their users. Congratulations on finding a way to neatly exploit holes in Windows idea of security - but is it really something you want to make easier for every script kiddie?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 09:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t775gu$vp6$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84410 |
Am 01.06.2022 um 09:38 schrieb David Brown: > On 31/05/2022 18:25, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> The code is for demonstration purposes and so there is no point in being >>> pedantic about the style. ... >> >> It's not for demonstation puposes. There are no clean ways to inject >> arbitrary code into a Win32-process on the net. And this is mostly >> clean and you can even debug the code inside the foreign process >> (I've tried that with WinDbg and supressing IsDebugerPresent() is >> easy). > > I haven't looked at the article or the code - I have no interest in > Windows programming. But this sounds to me like a recipe that has a > single purpose - writing malicious software to attack other programs or > their users. Congratulations on finding a way to neatly exploit holes > in Windows idea of security - but is it really something you want to > make easier for every script kiddie? I don't want to support that purpose. But there are other purposes which aren't in the intent of the developers or the company selling the software but which are up to the people using the software.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 10:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t7778c$6av$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84412 |
Am 01.06.2022 um 09:46 schrieb Bonita Montero: > Am 01.06.2022 um 09:38 schrieb David Brown: >> On 31/05/2022 18:25, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>> The code is for demonstration purposes and so there is no point in >>>> being >>>> pedantic about the style. ... >>> >>> It's not for demonstation puposes. There are no clean ways to inject >>> arbitrary code into a Win32-process on the net. And this is mostly >>> clean and you can even debug the code inside the foreign process >>> (I've tried that with WinDbg and supressing IsDebugerPresent() is >>> easy). >> >> I haven't looked at the article or the code - I have no interest in >> Windows programming. But this sounds to me like a recipe that has a >> single purpose - writing malicious software to attack other programs >> or their users. Congratulations on finding a way to neatly exploit >> holes in Windows idea of security - but is it really something you >> want to make easier for every script kiddie? > > I don't want to support that purpose. But there are other purposes > which aren't in the intent of the developers or the company selling > the software but which are up to the people using the software. The purpose I invented this code is to inject foreign code into Adobe Digital Editions to break arbitrary DRM encryption. It would be easy to bypass that or to make this practically impossible, but I don't know how much necessity the Adobe developers swe in imple- menting that. My first attempts failed but maybe the next is the one I looked for.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 10:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t777ie$c0f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84413 |
Am 01.06.2022 um 10:16 schrieb Bonita Montero: > Am 01.06.2022 um 09:46 schrieb Bonita Montero: >> Am 01.06.2022 um 09:38 schrieb David Brown: >>> On 31/05/2022 18:25, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>> The code is for demonstration purposes and so there is no point in >>>>> being >>>>> pedantic about the style. ... >>>> >>>> It's not for demonstation puposes. There are no clean ways to inject >>>> arbitrary code into a Win32-process on the net. And this is mostly >>>> clean and you can even debug the code inside the foreign process >>>> (I've tried that with WinDbg and supressing IsDebugerPresent() is >>>> easy). >>> >>> I haven't looked at the article or the code - I have no interest in >>> Windows programming. But this sounds to me like a recipe that has a >>> single purpose - writing malicious software to attack other programs >>> or their users. Congratulations on finding a way to neatly exploit >>> holes in Windows idea of security - but is it really something you >>> want to make easier for every script kiddie? >> >> I don't want to support that purpose. But there are other purposes >> which aren't in the intent of the developers or the company selling >> the software but which are up to the people using the software. > > The purpose I invented this code is to inject foreign code into > Adobe Digital Editions to break arbitrary DRM encryption. It would > be easy to bypass that or to make this practically impossible, but > I don't know how much necessity the Adobe developers swe in imple- > menting that. My first attempts failed but maybe the next is the > one I looked for. And I would never spread that code among others since I just want to benefit personally from that code and don't want that this "cheat" would be disabled by the next version of ADE.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 17:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t77vn5$obe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84413 |
On 01/06/2022 10:16, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 01.06.2022 um 09:46 schrieb Bonita Montero: >> Am 01.06.2022 um 09:38 schrieb David Brown: >>> On 31/05/2022 18:25, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>> The code is for demonstration purposes and so there is no point in >>>>> being >>>>> pedantic about the style. ... >>>> >>>> It's not for demonstation puposes. There are no clean ways to inject >>>> arbitrary code into a Win32-process on the net. And this is mostly >>>> clean and you can even debug the code inside the foreign process >>>> (I've tried that with WinDbg and supressing IsDebugerPresent() is >>>> easy). >>> >>> I haven't looked at the article or the code - I have no interest in >>> Windows programming. But this sounds to me like a recipe that has a >>> single purpose - writing malicious software to attack other programs >>> or their users. Congratulations on finding a way to neatly exploit >>> holes in Windows idea of security - but is it really something you >>> want to make easier for every script kiddie? >> >> I don't want to support that purpose. But there are other purposes >> which aren't in the intent of the developers or the company selling >> the software but which are up to the people using the software. > > The purpose I invented this code is to inject foreign code into > Adobe Digital Editions to break arbitrary DRM encryption. That would be malicious software attacking other programs. You might not approve of the use of DRM or encryption, or the laws of various countries that enforce such restrictions. You'd find plenty of people who agree with you there, including me. But that is /very/ different from breaking licenses, copyrights, or agreements, or breaking the laws of some countries, in order to enforce your particular viewpoint. > It would > be easy to bypass that or to make this practically impossible, but > I don't know how much necessity the Adobe developers swe in imple- > menting that. My first attempts failed but maybe the next is the > one I looked for.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 17:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t77vq9$okl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84434 |
Am 01.06.2022 um 17:13 schrieb David Brown: > On 01/06/2022 10:16, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 01.06.2022 um 09:46 schrieb Bonita Montero: >>> Am 01.06.2022 um 09:38 schrieb David Brown: >>>> On 31/05/2022 18:25, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>> The code is for demonstration purposes and so there is no point in >>>>>> being >>>>>> pedantic about the style. ... >>>>> >>>>> It's not for demonstation puposes. There are no clean ways to inject >>>>> arbitrary code into a Win32-process on the net. And this is mostly >>>>> clean and you can even debug the code inside the foreign process >>>>> (I've tried that with WinDbg and supressing IsDebugerPresent() is >>>>> easy). >>>> >>>> I haven't looked at the article or the code - I have no interest in >>>> Windows programming. But this sounds to me like a recipe that has a >>>> single purpose - writing malicious software to attack other programs >>>> or their users. Congratulations on finding a way to neatly exploit >>>> holes in Windows idea of security - but is it really something you >>>> want to make easier for every script kiddie? >>> >>> I don't want to support that purpose. But there are other purposes >>> which aren't in the intent of the developers or the company selling >>> the software but which are up to the people using the software. >> >> The purpose I invented this code is to inject foreign code into >> Adobe Digital Editions to break arbitrary DRM encryption. > > That would be malicious software attacking other programs. Not for those people using that software. And in this case even for Adobe since it's not their problem that DRM-content might be violated. > You might not approve of the use of DRM or encryption, or the laws of > various countries that enforce such restrictions. You'd find plenty of > people who agree with you there, including me. But that is /very/ > different from breaking licenses, copyrights, or agreements, or breaking > the laws of some countries, in order to enforce your particular viewpoint. Private people usually don't care about that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 18:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t78366$1h3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84435 |
On 01/06/2022 17:15, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 01.06.2022 um 17:13 schrieb David Brown: >> On 01/06/2022 10:16, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Am 01.06.2022 um 09:46 schrieb Bonita Montero: >>>> Am 01.06.2022 um 09:38 schrieb David Brown: >>>>> On 31/05/2022 18:25, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>>> The code is for demonstration purposes and so there is no point >>>>>>> in being >>>>>>> pedantic about the style. ... >>>>>> >>>>>> It's not for demonstation puposes. There are no clean ways to inject >>>>>> arbitrary code into a Win32-process on the net. And this is mostly >>>>>> clean and you can even debug the code inside the foreign process >>>>>> (I've tried that with WinDbg and supressing IsDebugerPresent() is >>>>>> easy). >>>>> >>>>> I haven't looked at the article or the code - I have no interest in >>>>> Windows programming. But this sounds to me like a recipe that has >>>>> a single purpose - writing malicious software to attack other >>>>> programs or their users. Congratulations on finding a way to >>>>> neatly exploit holes in Windows idea of security - but is it really >>>>> something you want to make easier for every script kiddie? >>>> >>>> I don't want to support that purpose. But there are other purposes >>>> which aren't in the intent of the developers or the company selling >>>> the software but which are up to the people using the software. >>> >>> The purpose I invented this code is to inject foreign code into >>> Adobe Digital Editions to break arbitrary DRM encryption. >> >> That would be malicious software attacking other programs. > > Not for those people using that software. Please re-read my post - you are attacking the program. You are not directly harming the people /using/ the program, but you are harming the people who /make/ the program. Again, no one requires you to approve of Adobe's choices here, but the laws of most countries /do/ require you to refrain from attacking them and breaching their copyrights and licenses. And ultimately, attacking the producers of a program can have detrimental effects on the users or future users of the program. > And in this case even for Adobe since it's not their problem > that DRM-content might be violated. I believe you are in Germany. AFAIUI, lawyers there are allowed to come after you directly if they believe you are breaching copyrights - whether or not they think it is Adobe's problem, or an attack on the people who own the copyrights of the documents you are trying to access without an appropriate license. Then it becomes /your/ problem. > >> You might not approve of the use of DRM or encryption, or the laws of >> various countries that enforce such restrictions. You'd find plenty >> of people who agree with you there, including me. But that is /very/ >> different from breaking licenses, copyrights, or agreements, or >> breaking the laws of some countries, in order to enforce your >> particular viewpoint. > > Private people usually don't care about that. Sorry, but most people are basically law-abiding citizens. They might not make too much of a fuss about following all copyright regulations, but few people would publish code designed specifically to make it easier for other people to break laws or licensing restrictions - especially when the most likely use of the code in question is to make malware that directly attacks users.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 18:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t783gi$8uk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84443 |
> Please re-read my post - you are attacking the program. You are not > directly harming the people /using/ the program, but you are harming the > people who /make/ the program. ... You feel like that because you're biased as being a programmer. But the programmers of ADE aren't actually attacked but those people which want to sell the content. And I've no problems with that. > Sorry, but most people are basically law-abiding citizens. .. You're not generally a non law-abiding citizen by crossing a red traffic light like every tenth people does here in Germany. And at night when there are almost no cars everyone does this. It's like copying WinZip; a substantial part of the users does that when this program wa up to date and no one had a problem with that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 18:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t784nf$fn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84444 |
Am 01.06.2022 um 18:18 schrieb Bonita Montero: >> Please re-read my post - you are attacking the program. You are not >> directly harming the people /using/ the program, but you are harming >> the people who /make/ the program. ... > > You feel like that because you're biased as being a programmer. > But the programmers of ADE aren't actually attacked but those people > which want to sell the content. And I've no problems with that. I would even spread such a tool if the consequences for me wouldn't be that there were newer versions that fix this "bug". So I actually won't do that in my vested interest.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web