Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #120154 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-09-21 15:43 -0400 |
| Last post | 2024-09-25 15:23 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 258 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
C++ named requirements as concepts jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-21 15:43 -0400
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-22 08:06 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 10:45 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-22 08:59 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 11:03 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-22 09:08 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 11:51 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-22 15:15 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 17:33 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-23 07:39 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 10:54 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-23 09:32 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 11:45 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-23 13:56 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 16:00 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-23 14:03 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-23 15:48 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 17:52 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-23 15:47 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 17:53 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-24 07:20 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 09:33 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-24 08:11 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 11:17 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 11:46 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-24 10:52 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 12:54 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-24 10:59 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 13:05 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-24 11:07 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 13:21 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-24 13:51 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 15:56 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-24 15:43 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 17:48 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 07:19 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 11:30 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 09:49 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 08:24 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 11:32 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 11:15 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 13:30 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 12:43 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 14:50 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 14:00 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 12:47 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 15:00 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 13:22 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 17:12 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 15:35 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 19:19 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-26 07:36 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 11:36 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-25 13:11 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-25 13:31 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-09-25 13:52 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-25 14:06 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 14:22 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 11:12 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-25 14:30 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 14:34 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 14:38 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 15:01 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 12:40 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 13:23 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 13:33 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-25 14:38 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 13:45 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 14:36 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 14:39 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 15:04 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-25 17:14 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 16:23 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 17:18 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 17:26 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 17:14 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-09-25 21:24 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 20:37 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 13:49 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 14:03 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 14:38 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-25 15:17 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-09-25 15:49 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 14:52 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 12:55 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 15:08 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 13:24 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 15:28 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 13:36 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 15:44 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 14:11 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 16:14 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 15:32 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 17:33 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 15:49 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 17:53 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-26 07:34 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 10:20 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 16:46 +0800
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 16:51 +0800
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 11:20 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 19:17 +0800
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 19:27 +0800
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 13:32 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-26 12:23 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 11:25 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 19:20 +0800
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-26 10:03 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 13:33 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-26 14:09 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 16:14 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-27 02:27 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-27 11:11 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-27 16:14 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-27 15:25 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-27 18:24 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-28 09:12 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-28 17:33 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-28 15:47 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 13:41 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-29 13:48 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 14:49 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-29 11:23 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.com - 2024-09-30 07:26 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-09-30 07:40 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-30 12:24 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-09-30 15:47 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-30 17:58 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-30 10:57 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-30 05:29 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-30 14:34 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-30 15:21 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-09-30 16:00 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-09-30 16:09 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 19:43 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-01 07:31 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-01 11:01 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-10-01 10:06 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-01 09:58 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-10-01 12:58 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-01 16:14 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-10-01 19:43 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-02 07:11 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-10-02 09:34 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-01 09:57 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-30 10:18 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-01 07:32 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-30 19:51 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-01 07:36 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-10-01 10:00 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-01 10:42 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-01 12:53 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-01 10:02 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-01 13:11 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-01 16:13 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-01 21:50 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-10-01 20:06 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts User <noreply@user.com> - 2024-10-02 05:47 +0100
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-10-04 06:52 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-04 13:57 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-02 13:02 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-10-04 06:57 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-06 14:19 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-06 14:22 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-10-07 09:11 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-07 22:53 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-10-08 18:11 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-08 22:48 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-10-09 00:12 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-09 01:06 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-10-09 08:25 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-10-09 08:28 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-10-09 10:26 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-09 09:31 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-09 13:58 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-10-09 14:39 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-09 19:59 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-10-09 22:37 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-10 11:47 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-10-11 04:58 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-11 16:03 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-10-12 07:41 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-10-12 08:18 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-10-11 03:57 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-10-07 19:19 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-02 07:13 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-01 13:06 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-01 10:01 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-01 13:08 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-01 16:15 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-10-01 19:44 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-01 09:56 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-10-01 13:01 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-29 15:00 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 14:37 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 15:42 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-29 15:47 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-28 04:28 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-28 13:55 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 15:33 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-25 17:16 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-09-25 16:22 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 13:34 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 17:27 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-09-25 22:37 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-26 07:38 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 10:21 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-26 10:03 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 13:29 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-26 14:09 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 16:17 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 15:07 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-26 18:22 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 14:58 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 15:19 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 13:55 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-24 10:50 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 12:53 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-22 07:58 -0400
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 14:10 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-23 11:08 -0400
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 17:21 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-22 15:21 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 17:34 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-23 07:40 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 10:55 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-23 09:33 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 11:46 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-23 13:59 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 16:02 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-23 14:05 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 16:10 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 12:55 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-23 16:24 -0400
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 14:43 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-23 18:59 -0400
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 16:06 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 16:10 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-24 09:15 -0400
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-24 07:23 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 09:34 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-24 08:14 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 11:18 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-24 08:59 -0400
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 15:02 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 13:37 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Jack <noreply@mandrill.com> - 2024-09-23 00:15 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 08:48 +0800
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-22 11:46 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 13:35 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-22 11:43 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-22 17:00 -0400
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-22 14:50 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-23 10:32 -0400
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 16:55 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-23 08:11 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 08:24 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-25 15:23 -0400
Page 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
| From | Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 16:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vdh74i$2q4qh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120504 |
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 12:58:32 +0200 Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> boring babbled: >Am 01.10.2024 um 11:58 schrieb Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org: > >> Because its not valid C++! I was using modified C++ syntax to keep people >happy >> since they couldn't figure out the syntax of the functional language I used. > >Talk about real languages an not languages you've invented ad-hoc. >The code you've shown doesn't make sense at all. You're little more than a dictionary. You know the C++ syntax inside out but you don't really understand computer science concepts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 19:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vdhcbm$2r0pi$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #120512 |
Am 01.10.2024 um 18:14 schrieb Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org: > On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 12:58:32 +0200 > Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> boring babbled: >> Am 01.10.2024 um 11:58 schrieb Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org: >> >>> Because its not valid C++! I was using modified C++ syntax to keep people >> happy >>> since they couldn't figure out the syntax of the functional language I used. >> >> Talk about real languages an not languages you've invented ad-hoc. >> The code you've shown doesn't make sense at all. > > You're little more than a dictionary. You know the C++ syntax inside > out but you don't really understand computer science concepts. > I've studied applied computer sciences in Germany / Iserlohn in the 90s.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-02 07:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vdirnk$35826$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120514 |
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 19:43:29 +0200 Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> boring babbled: >Am 01.10.2024 um 18:14 schrieb Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org: >> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 12:58:32 +0200 >> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> boring babbled: >>> Am 01.10.2024 um 11:58 schrieb Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org: >>> >>>> Because its not valid C++! I was using modified C++ syntax to keep people >>> happy >>>> since they couldn't figure out the syntax of the functional language I >used. >>> >>> Talk about real languages an not languages you've invented ad-hoc. >>> The code you've shown doesn't make sense at all. >> >> You're little more than a dictionary. You know the C++ syntax inside >> out but you don't really understand computer science concepts. >> > >I've studied applied computer sciences in Germany / Iserlohn in the 90s. Doesn't mean you remember any of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-02 09:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vdit2m$35dov$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #120539 |
Am 02.10.2024 um 09:11 schrieb Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org: > Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> boring babbled: >> I've studied applied computer sciences in Germany / Iserlohn in the 90s. > Doesn't mean you remember any of it. Yes, because I don't know what non-existing "value polymophism" is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 09:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vdgh2k$2mcdn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120493 |
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 11:01:29 +0300
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> boring babbled:
>On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 07:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
>Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 19:43:43 +0300
>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> boring babbled:
>> >On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 16:00:02 -0000 (UTC)
>> >Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org wrote:
>> >> void func(int i = 1) { cout << "One\n"; }
>> >> void func(int i = 2) { cout << "Two\n"; }
>> >> void func(string s = "hello") { cout << "Hello!\n"; }
>> >> void func(int i) { cout << "Int default\n"; }
>> >> void func(string s) { cout << "String default\n"; }
>> >>
>> >> int main()
>> >> {
>> >> for(int i=0;i < 5;++i) func(i);
>> >> func("hello");
>> >> func("world");
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> I'm sure even a thickheads like you and Rensch can figure how that
>> >> would run now it has your familiar comfy C++ syntax.
>> >>
>> >
>> >You forgot to mention what you expect as an output.
>>
>> You seriously can't figure it out?
>>
>
>No, I can't.
Says it all.
>I see two possibilities and don't know which one was chosen by
>definitions of your private language.
Int Default
One
Two
Int Default
Int Default
Int Default
Hello!
String default
If you still can't figure out why it would do that then maybe programming
isn't for you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-30 10:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86frph12mp.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #120478 |
Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org writes:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 15:21:22 +0200
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> boring babbled:
>
>> Certainly that is an established kind of polymorphism, and pretty
>> much the only hit when googling "value polymorphism" is "return
>> value polymorphism". It is found in Ada, Haskell, and Rust (I
>> think). You can also do it in C++, at least to some extent, by
>> making types with conversion operators to different types. (It can
>> be used in expression templates, for example.)
>>
>> But that does not at all fit with the examples he gave in his
>> "specialist" language, which was just pattern matching. It fits
>> better with the link he gave, though that was more like C++
>> template variables.
>>
>> I think Tim's conclusion that Muttley is confused is more likely.
>
> Please explain what you find so complicated about a polymorphic
> function call being based on the VALUE of one or more parameters
> passed to it rather than the type of parameter? Imagine in C++ if
> you could do:
>
> void func(int i = 1) { cout << "One\n"; }
> void func(int i = 2) { cout << "Two\n"; }
> void func(string s = "hello") { cout << "Hello!\n"; }
> void func(int i) { cout << "Int default\n"; }
> void func(string s) { cout << "String default\n"; }
>
> int main()
> {
> for(int i=0;i < 5;++i) func(i);
> func("hello");
> func("world");
> }
>
> I'm sure even a thickheads like you and Rensch can figure how that
> would run now it has your familiar comfy C++ syntax.
Until you describe what you mean in terms of an existing, public
language, such as Haskell, and without any imaginary extensions, and
with an example that can be compiled as is and run successfully,
there is no reason to pay attention to anything you say.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 07:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vdg8iq$2l5qt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120481 |
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 10:18:38 -0700
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> boring babbled:
>Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org writes:
>> Please explain what you find so complicated about a polymorphic
>> function call being based on the VALUE of one or more parameters
>> passed to it rather than the type of parameter? Imagine in C++ if
>> you could do:
>>
>> void func(int i = 1) { cout << "One\n"; }
>> void func(int i = 2) { cout << "Two\n"; }
>> void func(string s = "hello") { cout << "Hello!\n"; }
>> void func(int i) { cout << "Int default\n"; }
>> void func(string s) { cout << "String default\n"; }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> for(int i=0;i < 5;++i) func(i);
>> func("hello");
>> func("world");
>> }
>>
>> I'm sure even a thickheads like you and Rensch can figure how that
>> would run now it has your familiar comfy C++ syntax.
>
>Until you describe what you mean in terms of an existing, public
>language, such as Haskell, and without any imaginary extensions, and
>with an example that can be compiled as is and run successfully,
>there is no reason to pay attention to anything you say.
You've already demonstrated you're a bit dim when it comes to
understanding this concept, no need to keep digging.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-30 19:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vdeoej$2b22u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120478 |
On 30/09/2024 18:00, Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 15:21:22 +0200
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> boring babbled:
>> Certainly that is an established kind of polymorphism, and pretty much
>> the only hit when googling "value polymorphism" is "return value
>> polymorphism". It is found in Ada, Haskell, and Rust (I think). You
>> can also do it in C++, at least to some extent, by making types with
>> conversion operators to different types. (It can be used in expression
>> templates, for example.)
>>
>> But that does not at all fit with the examples he gave in his
>> "specialist" language, which was just pattern matching. It fits better
>> with the link he gave, though that was more like C++ template variables.
>>
>> I think Tim's conclusion that Muttley is confused is more likely.
>
> Please explain what you find so complicated about a polymorphic function
> call being based on the VALUE of one or more parameters passed to it rather
> than the type of parameter?
Nobody finds the concept of pattern matching difficult to understand.
Nor is your private functional programming language example difficult to
follow - unless there is something non-obvious that we can't see,
because it is a private language whose details are unknown.
Remember, you are talking to people who are more knowledgeable than you
in C++ (since you have pretty much given up anything beyond C++98), and
who have, to varying degrees, knowledge and experience in functional
programming. I have plenty of disagreements with both Bonita and Tim in
regard to their posting styles, the way they talk to others, and their
coding styles. But there is a difference between not liking the way
they write code, and not understanding the concepts they use. Bonita's
knowledge of C++ far exceeds yours, and Tim's knowledge of many
programming languages and language paradigms exceeds that of most people
I have come across.
We know what the code you wrote does. We disagree that it is
"polymorphism", or that "value polymorphism" is anything but a rather
obscure term that has no wide-spread meaning.
> Imagine in C++ if you could do:
>
> void func(int i = 1) { cout << "One\n"; }
> void func(int i = 2) { cout << "Two\n"; }
> void func(string s = "hello") { cout << "Hello!\n"; }
> void func(int i) { cout << "Int default\n"; }
> void func(string s) { cout << "String default\n"; }
>
Okay...
> int main()
> {
> for(int i=0;i < 5;++i) func(i);
> func("hello");
> func("world");
> }
>
> I'm sure even a thickheads like you and Rensch can figure how that would run
> now it has your familiar comfy C++ syntax.
>
Yes, it's obvious what you intend it to mean.
But that's not polymorphism.
First, you are mixing in the concept of overloading - so let's remove
that by throwing out the func overloads with string types, and
concentrating on those with an int parameter.
Now you have pattern matching - a switch, with a default case. The
twist (and it might be an interesting feature in a programming language,
but I am not sure it would be worth having) is that you allow the
definition of "func" to be split up.
However, it is not polymorphism - the code generated for "func" must
know about all possible specialisations.
C++ already allows this for compile-time constants:
template <int i = 0> void func() { cout << "Int default\n"; }
template <> void func<1>() { cout << "One\n"; }
template <> void func<2>() { cout << "Two\n"; }
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 07:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vdg8qn$2l73s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120482 |
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 19:51:14 +0200 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> boring babbled: >On 30/09/2024 18:00, Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org wrote: >> Please explain what you find so complicated about a polymorphic function >> call being based on the VALUE of one or more parameters passed to it rather >> than the type of parameter? > >Nobody finds the concept of pattern matching difficult to understand. >Nor is your private functional programming language example difficult to >follow - unless there is something non-obvious that we can't see, >because it is a private language whose details are unknown. > >Remember, you are talking to people who are more knowledgeable than you >in C++ (since you have pretty much given up anything beyond C++98), and This isn't about C++. Hadn't you figured that out yet? >they write code, and not understanding the concepts they use. Bonita's >knowledge of C++ far exceeds yours, and Tim's knowledge of many >programming languages and language paradigms exceeds that of most people >I have come across. Given his apparently inability to understand simple example code I very much doubt that. He probably struggles with something like SQL being so completely different to C++. >We know what the code you wrote does. We disagree that it is >"polymorphism", or that "value polymorphism" is anything but a rather >obscure term that has no wide-spread meaning. Describe what you think polymorphism is in general terms then. >Yes, it's obvious what you intend it to mean. > >But that's not polymorphism. Yes, it is. >Now you have pattern matching - a switch, with a default case. The >twist (and it might be an interesting feature in a programming language, >but I am not sure it would be worth having) is that you allow the >definition of "func" to be split up. So descriminating a function call by type is polymorphism but but value isn't. According to you. Whatever you say. >C++ already allows this for compile-time constants: Big deal. This is runtime, not compile time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 10:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vdga7d$2lbv9$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #120491 |
Am 01.10.2024 um 09:36 schrieb Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org: > Given his apparently inability to understand simple example code > I very much doubt that. He probably struggles with something like > SQL being so completely different to C++. Do you mean me with "he" ? I've got a OCP-DBA for Oracle and I've been a DBA two years. You don't even try to read my code, telling that my code doesn't make sense and it's too complicated. > Big deal. This is runtime, not compile time. Tell me which popular language implements this "value-polymorphism". It's a word Wikipedia doesn't know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 10:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vdgcku$2lih8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120492 |
On 01/10/2024 10:00, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 01.10.2024 um 09:36 schrieb Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org: > >> Given his apparently inability to understand simple example code >> I very much doubt that. He probably struggles with something like >> SQL being so completely different to C++. > > Do you mean me with "he" ? I've got a OCP-DBA for Oracle and I've > been a DBA two years. > You don't even try to read my code, telling that my code doesn't > make sense and it's too complicated. > >> Big deal. This is runtime, not compile time. > > Tell me which popular language implements this "value-polymorphism". > It's a word Wikipedia doesn't know. > Of course Wikipedia doesn't know it, since it is his own made-up term. (Well, his and one other person.) The word "polymorphism" means "multiple kinds" or "multiple shapes" - it is a term for code that can handle a parameter that can be of many different types. So in C++ terms (since this is comp.lang.c++, even though Muttley seems to think it is comp.lang.made-up-stuff), you can have run-time polymorphism using pointers to base classes and virtual functions, and compile-time polymorphism using generics and templates. What you can't have is "value" polymorphism - it's an oxymoron. The common term for code that can handle parameters taking multiple different values is "function". Muttley doesn't even seem to know what he means by the term. He has referred to a webpage that incorrectly uses the term for describing type-based overloading when defining a function in Haskell (in a single generic definition). The author of that page thinks the concept is unique to Haskell, though the same basic idea can be expressed in other languages including Ada and C++ (albeit with more explicit typing in C++). Then Muttley showed some pattern matching in his made-up language. Later, he has shown more pattern matching in made up C++ extensions. None of this shows anything that could reasonably be called "value polymorphism" in any sense. Nor is any of it required for functional programming - either for pure functional programming languages, or for using functional programming styles in multi-paradigm languages. Pattern matching can definitely be a nice way to structure code. And being able to split a function definition into parts with an implicit if/else list, switch, or pattern matching is an interesting idea that is common (but not essential) in functional programming languages and exists in C++ in the form of template specialisations. (C++ might acquire it for run-time functions once reflection and metaclasses are in place.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 12:53 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20241001125332.000058ba@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #120495 |
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 10:42:06 +0200 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 01/10/2024 10:00, Bonita Montero wrote: > > Am 01.10.2024 um 09:36 schrieb Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org: > > > >> Given his apparently inability to understand simple example code > >> I very much doubt that. He probably struggles with something like > >> SQL being so completely different to C++. > > > > Do you mean me with "he" ? I've got a OCP-DBA for Oracle and I've > > been a DBA two years. > > You don't even try to read my code, telling that my code doesn't > > make sense and it's too complicated. > > > >> Big deal. This is runtime, not compile time. > > > > Tell me which popular language implements this "value-polymorphism". > > It's a word Wikipedia doesn't know. > > > > Of course Wikipedia doesn't know it, since it is his own made-up > term. (Well, his and one other person.) > > The word "polymorphism" means "multiple kinds" or "multiple shapes" - > it is a term for code that can handle a parameter that can be of many > different types. So in C++ terms (since this is comp.lang.c++, even > though Muttley seems to think it is comp.lang.made-up-stuff), you can > have run-time polymorphism using pointers to base classes and virtual > functions, and compile-time polymorphism using generics and templates. > > What you can't have is "value" polymorphism - it's an oxymoron. I don't think so. IMHO, C++ does have features that can be called compile-time value polymorphism without overstretching definition of the word 'polymorphism'. You demonstrated it yourself few posts ago using relatively modern C++ features. But for class templates (as opposed to function templates) something that can be reasonably called 'value polymorphism' existed for as long as C++ has templates (1990 ?). The feature appears useful in 'pure functional' languages like C++ template sub-language. Of course, it is less useful, and probably not desirable in mixed functional/imperative environments where you can achieve the same result in several simpler ways. > The > common term for code that can handle parameters taking multiple > different values is "function". >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 10:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vdghc8$2me2g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120497 |
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 12:53:32 +0300 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> boring babbled: >The feature appears useful in 'pure functional' languages like C++ >template sub-language. Of course, it is less useful, and probably not >desirable in mixed functional/imperative environments where you can >achieve the same result in several simpler ways. All polymorphism can be achieved in simpler/cruder ways. Its simply a syntatic nicety.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 13:11 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20241001131141.000016b1@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #120502 |
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 10:02:48 -0000 (UTC) Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org wrote: > On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 12:53:32 +0300 > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> boring babbled: > >The feature appears useful in 'pure functional' languages like C++ > >template sub-language. Of course, it is less useful, and probably not > >desirable in mixed functional/imperative environments where you can > >achieve the same result in several simpler ways. > > All polymorphism can be achieved in simpler/cruder ways. Its simply a > syntatic nicety. > The point is that if your language is not 'pure functional' then those other ways (if, switch) are not 'cruder'. They are finer. The selection written as if/switch is both shorter and easier to follow than selection based on 'value polymorphism'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 16:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vdh739$2q4kk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120503 |
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 13:11:41 +0300 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> boring babbled: >On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 10:02:48 -0000 (UTC) >Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org wrote: > >> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 12:53:32 +0300 >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> boring babbled: >> >The feature appears useful in 'pure functional' languages like C++ >> >template sub-language. Of course, it is less useful, and probably not >> >desirable in mixed functional/imperative environments where you can >> >achieve the same result in several simpler ways. >> >> All polymorphism can be achieved in simpler/cruder ways. Its simply a >> syntatic nicety. >> > >The point is that if your language is not 'pure functional' then those >other ways (if, switch) are not 'cruder'. They are finer. >The selection written as if/switch is both shorter and easier to follow >than selection based on 'value polymorphism'. Personally I prefer seperate function names instead of overloaded functions and I don't often like operator overloading but they're part of C++. Presumably you feel the same way? Can't have it both ways mate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 21:50 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20241001215050.000027aa@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #120511 |
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 16:13:29 -0000 (UTC) Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org wrote: > On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 13:11:41 +0300 > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> boring babbled: > >On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 10:02:48 -0000 (UTC) > >Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 12:53:32 +0300 > >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> boring babbled: > >> >The feature appears useful in 'pure functional' languages like C++ > >> >template sub-language. Of course, it is less useful, and probably > >> >not desirable in mixed functional/imperative environments where > >> >you can achieve the same result in several simpler ways. > >> > >> All polymorphism can be achieved in simpler/cruder ways. Its > >> simply a syntatic nicety. > >> > > > >The point is that if your language is not 'pure functional' then > >those other ways (if, switch) are not 'cruder'. They are finer. > >The selection written as if/switch is both shorter and easier to > >follow than selection based on 'value polymorphism'. > > Personally I prefer seperate function names instead of overloaded > functions and I don't often like operator overloading but they're > part of C++. Presumably you feel the same way? Can't have it both > ways mate. > I do feel the same way, but that's completely differrent issue. The best C++ solution (actually, it is the best solution not just in C++ but in any language that is not pure functional) for your 'value polimorphism' example is not separte function names, but a single function with switch in the body. And best (for me, personally, YMMV) solution in pure functional languges is to avoid programming in such languages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 20:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86bk0319w3.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #120520 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > And best (for me, personally, YMMV) solution in pure functional > languges is to avoid programming in such languages. What do you count as a pure functional language?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | User <noreply@user.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-02 05:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vdije3$10nl2$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #120535 |
On 02/10/2024 04:06, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > >> And best (for me, personally, YMMV) solution in pure functional >> languges is to avoid programming in such languages. > > What do you count as a pure functional language? > F# (a.k.a F sharp)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-04 06:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <867cao0yc7.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #120538 |
User <noreply@user.com> writes: > On 02/10/2024 04:06, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >> >>> And best (for me, personally, YMMV) solution in pure functional >>> languges is to avoid programming in such languages. >> >> What do you count as a pure functional language? > > F# (a.k.a F sharp) F# has mutable* variables, mutable* record fields, mutable arrays, mutable hash tables, for loops, while loops, and no doubt other imperative constructs such as I/O and sequencing (where the * means mutable is an optional attribute).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-04 13:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vdos7n$8b57$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120556 |
On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 06:52:40 -0700 Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> boring babbled: >User <noreply@user.com> writes: > >> On 02/10/2024 04:06, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> >>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >>> >>>> And best (for me, personally, YMMV) solution in pure functional >>>> languges is to avoid programming in such languages. >>> >>> What do you count as a pure functional language? >> >> F# (a.k.a F sharp) > >F# has mutable* variables, mutable* record fields, mutable arrays, >mutable hash tables, for loops, while loops, and no doubt other >imperative constructs such as I/O and sequencing (where the * >means mutable is an optional attribute). Surely a "pure" functional language doesn't have imperative loop constructs?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web