Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #70099 > unrolled thread

Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free()

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-11-28 15:39 -0800
    Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-28 16:33 -0800
      Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-10 22:48 -0800
        Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-11 00:24 -0800
          Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-14 07:16 -0800
            Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-14 08:55 -0800
              Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-21 02:01 -0800
                Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free() James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-21 06:00 -0800

#70099 — Re: std::atomic<T>::is_lock_free()

Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> writes:

> On Sunday, 17 November 2019 16:49:59 UTC+2, Bonita Montero  wrote:
>
>> The standard says that all objects of complete types have a poper
>> alignment.
>
> That is bald, groundless and nonsensical assertion.
> All objects *must* have complete types in C++ program:
> "A program is ill-formed if the definition of any object gives
> the object an incomplete type."

Not counting the misspelling of proper, there is nothing nonsensical
about it.  Furthermore although the C++ standard doesn't use those
exact words, it does imply that the statement is true.

Incidentally, I think the word "bald" doesn't mean what you think it
means.  The statement "the sun is shining today" could accurately,
even if perhaps confusingly, be termed a "bald statement".

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#70101

On Friday, 29 November 2019 01:39:26 UTC+2, Tim Rentsch  wrote:
> Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> writes:
> 
> > On Sunday, 17 November 2019 16:49:59 UTC+2, Bonita Montero  wrote:
> >
> >> The standard says that all objects of complete types have a poper
> >> alignment.
> >
> > That is bald, groundless and nonsensical assertion.
> > All objects *must* have complete types in C++ program:
> > "A program is ill-formed if the definition of any object gives
> > the object an incomplete type."
> 
> Not counting the misspelling of proper, there is nothing nonsensical
> about it.  Furthermore although the C++ standard doesn't use those
> exact words, it does imply that the statement is true.

Nonsensical is to assert that standard says something specially about
properties of objects of complete types when these are the only kind
of objects that may exist in well-formed program.

If you mean (leaving the nonsense aside) that "all objects must have
proper alignment" is said by standard in some other wording then feel
free to quote, I have found it not.

> Incidentally, I think the word "bald" doesn't mean what you think it
> means.  The statement "the sun is shining today" could accurately,
> even if perhaps confusingly, be termed a "bald statement".

I used "bald assertion" in sense of "a statement used without proof
or evidence of truth". Wikipedia claims it is used in that sense
about marketing statements ... I think Bonita uses such statements
just to post something.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71276

Tiib writes:

> On Friday, 29 November 2019 01:39:26 UTC+2, Tim Rentsch  wrote:
>
>>  <<D6 F6 [05b6]>>  Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> writes:
>>
>>> On Sunday, 17 November 2019 16:49:59 UTC+2, Bonita Montero  wrote:
>>>
>>>> The standard says that all objects of complete types have a poper
>>>> alignment.
>>>
>>> That is bald, groundless and nonsensical assertion.
>>> All objects *must* have complete types in C++ program:
>>> "A program is ill-formed if the definition of any object gives
>>> the object an incomplete type."
>>
>> Not counting the misspelling of proper, there is nothing nonsensical
>> about it.  Furthermore although the C++ standard doesn't use those
>> exact words, it does imply that the statement is true.
>
> Nonsensical is to assert that standard says something specially about
> properties of objects of complete types when these are the only kind
> of objects that may exist in well-formed program.

I think you misunderstand the English word nonsensical.  A
statement can be unlikely, silly, or ridiculous, but none
of those make it nonsensical.  In fact to say a statement
is unlikely more or less automatically implies it is sensical.

> If you mean (leaving the nonsense aside) that "all objects must have
> proper alignment" is said by standard in some other wording then feel
> free to quote, I have found it not.

I mean I find the statement consistent with what the standard
does say.

>> Incidentally, I think the word "bald" doesn't mean what you think it
>> means.  The statement "the sun is shining today" could accurately,
>> even if perhaps confusingly, be termed a "bald statement".
>
> I used "bald assertion" in sense of "a statement used without proof
> or evidence of truth".  Wikipedia claims it is used in that sense
> about marketing statements ... [...]

Despite what Wikipedia may say, that's isn't what the word means.
I recommend, especially for people for whom English is not their
first language, consulting a dictionary (or better, more than one)
whenever there is any question about what a word means or whether
a particular word is a good choice in a particular situation.  I
routinely consult dictionaries when questions like this come up
(yes, even though English is my first language).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71278

On Saturday, 11 January 2020 08:48:50 UTC+2, Tim Rentsch  wrote:
> Tiib writes:
> 
> > On Friday, 29 November 2019 01:39:26 UTC+2, Tim Rentsch  wrote:
> >
> >>  <<D6 F6 [05b6]>>  Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> writes:
> >>
> >>> On Sunday, 17 November 2019 16:49:59 UTC+2, Bonita Montero  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The standard says that all objects of complete types have a poper
> >>>> alignment.
> >>>
> >>> That is bald, groundless and nonsensical assertion.
> >>> All objects *must* have complete types in C++ program:
> >>> "A program is ill-formed if the definition of any object gives
> >>> the object an incomplete type."
> >>
> >> Not counting the misspelling of proper, there is nothing nonsensical
> >> about it.  Furthermore although the C++ standard doesn't use those
> >> exact words, it does imply that the statement is true.
> >
> > Nonsensical is to assert that standard says something specially about
> > properties of objects of complete types when these are the only kind
> > of objects that may exist in well-formed program.
> 
> I think you misunderstand the English word nonsensical.  A
> statement can be unlikely, silly, or ridiculous, but none
> of those make it nonsensical.  In fact to say a statement
> is unlikely more or less automatically implies it is sensical.
> 
> > If you mean (leaving the nonsense aside) that "all objects must have
> > proper alignment" is said by standard in some other wording then feel
> > free to quote, I have found it not.
> 
> I mean I find the statement consistent with what the standard
> does say.
> 
> >> Incidentally, I think the word "bald" doesn't mean what you think it
> >> means.  The statement "the sun is shining today" could accurately,
> >> even if perhaps confusingly, be termed a "bald statement".
> >
> > I used "bald assertion" in sense of "a statement used without proof
> > or evidence of truth".  Wikipedia claims it is used in that sense
> > about marketing statements ... [...]
> 
> Despite what Wikipedia may say, that's isn't what the word means.
> I recommend, especially for people for whom English is not their
> first language, consulting a dictionary (or better, more than one)
> whenever there is any question about what a word means or whether
> a particular word is a good choice in a particular situation.  I
> routinely consult dictionaries when questions like this come up
> (yes, even though English is my first language).

I can communicate in 4 languages and so am convinced that words
mean nothing in essence. Word may be used in one meaning in one
language in totally different meaning in other language and never
used in any meaning in third language. Meaning is what people
wanted to express with those.
Online English encyclopedia just documents with cites that certain
words are used by certain people to express something and so these
words have that meaning. In C++ standard these words are not used
to mean anything and so can not cause confusion with slang of C++.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71340

Tiib writes:

> On Saturday, 11 January 2020 08:48:50 UTC+2, Tim Rentsch  wrote:

[...]

>> I recommend, especially for people for whom English is not their
>> first language, consulting a dictionary (or better, more than one)
>> whenever there is any question about what a word means or whether
>> a particular word is a good choice in a particular situation.  I
>> routinely consult dictionaries when questions like this come up
>> (yes, even though English is my first language).
>
> I can communicate in 4 languages and so am convinced that words
> mean nothing in essence.  Word may be used in one meaning in one
> language in totally different meaning in other language and never
> used in any meaning in third language.  Meaning is what people
> wanted to express with those.
> Online English encyclopedia just documents with cites that certain
> words are used by certain people to express something and so these
> words have that meaning.  In C++ standard these words are not used
> to mean anything and so can not cause confusion with slang of C++.

When your aim is to communicate with people while speaking (or
writing) English, it's almost always better to use words in the
way that they are likely to be most commonly understood.  Using
dictionaries is good for this purpose, precisely because it is
widely accepted (at least in English speaking cultures) that they
provide good and fairly reliably authoritative information.  In
short, using dictionaries is good because everyone knows to
consult them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71344

On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 17:16:57 UTC+2, Tim Rentsch  wrote:
> Tiib writes:
> 
> > On Saturday, 11 January 2020 08:48:50 UTC+2, Tim Rentsch  wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> I recommend, especially for people for whom English is not their
> >> first language, consulting a dictionary (or better, more than one)
> >> whenever there is any question about what a word means or whether
> >> a particular word is a good choice in a particular situation.  I
> >> routinely consult dictionaries when questions like this come up
> >> (yes, even though English is my first language).
> >
> > I can communicate in 4 languages and so am convinced that words
> > mean nothing in essence.  Word may be used in one meaning in one
> > language in totally different meaning in other language and never
> > used in any meaning in third language.  Meaning is what people
> > wanted to express with those.
> > Online English encyclopedia just documents with cites that certain
> > words are used by certain people to express something and so these
> > words have that meaning.  In C++ standard these words are not used
> > to mean anything and so can not cause confusion with slang of C++.
> 
> When your aim is to communicate with people while speaking (or
> writing) English, it's almost always better to use words in the
> way that they are likely to be most commonly understood.  Using
> dictionaries is good for this purpose, precisely because it is
> widely accepted (at least in English speaking cultures) that they
> provide good and fairly reliably authoritative information.  In
> short, using dictionaries is good because everyone knows to
> consult them.

I usually do not communicate with purpose of using English.
However I checked couple dictionaries and figured out that
"bald" has roughly two meanings:
1: bare, barren, naked, hairless, having no covering.
2: simple, unadorned,  blunt. 
So I feel that "bald assertion" carries what I meant.
So it makes me unsure about what you complain.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71479

Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> writes:

> On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 17:16:57 UTC+2, Tim Rentsch  wrote:
>
>> Tiib writes:
>>
>>> On Saturday, 11 January 2020 08:48:50 UTC+2, Tim Rentsch  wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> I recommend, especially for people for whom English is not their
>>>> first language, consulting a dictionary (or better, more than one)
>>>> whenever there is any question about what a word means or whether
>>>> a particular word is a good choice in a particular situation.  I
>>>> routinely consult dictionaries when questions like this come up
>>>> (yes, even though English is my first language).
>>>
>>> I can communicate in 4 languages and so am convinced that words
>>> mean nothing in essence.  Word may be used in one meaning in one
>>> language in totally different meaning in other language and never
>>> used in any meaning in third language.  Meaning is what people
>>> wanted to express with those.
>>> Online English encyclopedia just documents with cites that certain
>>> words are used by certain people to express something and so these
>>> words have that meaning.  In C++ standard these words are not used
>>> to mean anything and so can not cause confusion with slang of C++.
>>
>> When your aim is to communicate with people while speaking (or
>> writing) English, it's almost always better to use words in the
>> way that they are likely to be most commonly understood.  Using
>> dictionaries is good for this purpose, precisely because it is
>> widely accepted (at least in English speaking cultures) that they
>> provide good and fairly reliably authoritative information.  In
>> short, using dictionaries is good because everyone knows to
>> consult them.
>
> I usually do not communicate with purpose of using English.
> However I checked couple dictionaries and figured out that
> "bald" has roughly two meanings:
> 1: bare, barren, naked, hairless, having no covering.
> 2: simple, unadorned,  blunt.
> So I feel that "bald assertion" carries what I meant.
> So it makes me unsure about what you complain.

Because I think the phrase doesn't convey the meaning you want
to convey.  Or to say that another way, what you think the
phrase says is not how many or most people will read it.

(Incidentally, I wouldn't call my comment a complaint, but
that isn't important, just saying fyi.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71487

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 5:01:26 AM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> 嘱 Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> writes:
...
> > However I checked couple dictionaries and figured out that
> > "bald" has roughly two meanings:
> > 1: bare, barren, naked, hairless, having no covering.
> > 2: simple, unadorned,  blunt.
> > So I feel that "bald assertion" carries what I meant.
> > So it makes me unsure about what you complain.
> 
> Because I think the phrase doesn't convey the meaning you want
> to convey.  Or to say that another way, what you think the
> phrase says is not how many or most people will read it.

123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012
As  Öö Tiib has already mentioned, Wikipedia says that "bald assertion"
means a statement used "without proof or evidence of truth". Wiktionary
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bald> gives two meanings for bald that
specifically apply to statements: meaning #4 is "Unembellished", and
meaning #5 is "Without evidence or support being provided.". Meaning #5
can be seen as a special case of meaning #4 - the missing embellishments
include the evidence and support.
When I do a general Google search for "bald assertion", all of the top
hits support either meaning #4 or #5.
In 56 years of reading English, I can't remember ever having read a use
of "bald assertion" that didn't match meaning #5. I don't remember it
ever being used to point out the lack of any kind of embellishment other
than the lack of a supporting argument. 

So what is it that you claim is the correct meaning of the phrase, one
that you don't think he meant when he used that phrase?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web