Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #87753 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-12-08 12:31 +0000 |
| Last post | 2023-01-04 00:22 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 333 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-08 12:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2022-12-08 15:25 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-08 15:48 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-12-08 19:29 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-09 15:52 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-09 12:52 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-09 05:03 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-09 14:15 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 06:59 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2022-12-17 16:53 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 07:32 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-08 07:59 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-09 12:56 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-09 07:57 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-09 17:44 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Andreas Dehmel <blackhole.8.zarquon42@spamgourmet.com> - 2022-12-09 21:01 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-09 20:47 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Andreas Dehmel <blackhole.8.zarquon42@spamgourmet.com> - 2022-12-10 14:48 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-10 21:52 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 00:29 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Andreas Dehmel <blackhole.8.zarquon42@spamgourmet.com> - 2022-12-11 14:37 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 09:35 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-11 16:42 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-09 13:07 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 07:14 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-12 08:54 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 11:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-12 16:11 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 15:59 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-12 17:17 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2022-12-12 22:02 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-12 22:41 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 16:00 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-12-13 02:48 -0500
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 00:03 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-13 14:39 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-13 14:10 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-13 14:59 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 13:07 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-13 08:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Udo Steinbach <trashcan@udoline.de> - 2022-12-14 17:50 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-14 17:13 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-14 20:01 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-14 18:12 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 10:25 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-13 08:32 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 01:11 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-13 14:31 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-13 13:42 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-13 09:42 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-13 10:20 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-13 11:10 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-13 15:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-14 06:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-14 07:36 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 09:43 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-14 12:19 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 16:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 07:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 14:11 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 12:17 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-15 08:53 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-16 21:41 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-17 15:34 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 13:27 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 13:32 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 07:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 07:46 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-19 14:55 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 15:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-19 22:03 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-19 20:38 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-19 22:54 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tony Oliver <guinness.tony@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 16:38 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 19:18 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-20 14:51 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 08:23 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 17:52 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 17:56 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ralf Goertz <me@myprovider.invalid> - 2022-12-21 11:22 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 14:05 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 15:37 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 19:25 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 06:09 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 13:32 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 13:49 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 14:28 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-20 15:49 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 18:33 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-20 09:45 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-20 20:29 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-21 10:26 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 15:40 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-21 15:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-12-21 11:12 -0500
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 17:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-21 17:22 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 16:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-21 16:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-12-21 12:02 -0500
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 17:18 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 10:24 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 06:10 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-21 10:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 11:05 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-21 11:13 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 11:21 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 16:19 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 06:00 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-21 10:32 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 11:11 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-21 13:05 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 15:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-19 16:55 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 18:04 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 10:28 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 19:20 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2022-12-19 22:13 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 22:20 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 22:23 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 06:12 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-19 22:45 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 06:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-20 10:22 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 10:39 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-28 21:09 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-29 20:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-29 13:25 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-31 15:00 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-31 16:20 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-31 14:47 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-31 17:47 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-31 07:58 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Jack Lemmon <invalid@invalid.net> - 2022-12-31 18:03 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-31 14:46 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-03 06:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-01-03 01:49 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-03 10:05 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-03 10:14 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-03 11:04 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-03 15:20 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-04 07:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 23:29 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 23:30 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 01:41 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-04 08:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-04 22:48 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-05 09:14 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-05 16:34 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-06 13:02 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-06 14:31 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-01-05 16:48 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-06 13:18 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-01-06 16:45 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-09 05:17 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-01-09 00:45 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-09 13:26 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-10 05:56 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-01-09 22:48 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-10 11:08 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-01-10 03:28 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-10 16:26 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-01-10 07:48 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-10 09:11 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-10 17:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-10 21:38 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-10 12:48 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-11 05:47 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-11 09:21 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-13 07:51 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-13 10:14 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-13 12:45 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-13 14:08 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2023-01-13 06:18 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-14 07:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-16 11:17 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-24 07:17 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-24 09:35 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-01-24 03:09 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-13 16:08 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-11 13:20 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 23:23 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 23:26 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-04 09:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-04 11:03 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-04 11:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-04 13:09 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-04 15:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 10:49 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 15:57 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 13:32 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 13:52 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 16:20 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 06:12 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 22:31 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 06:41 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-21 11:25 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 11:14 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-21 13:42 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-12-21 20:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-21 14:56 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-22 12:20 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-22 20:43 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-23 10:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-23 19:42 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 19:30 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 09:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-14 12:28 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 16:30 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-14 16:50 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 17:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 20:01 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 08:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-19 09:40 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 12:10 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 14:47 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-19 16:52 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 18:08 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 10:36 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 06:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 01:01 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 10:44 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 10:30 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-20 10:21 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 10:46 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-28 12:48 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 13:38 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-29 20:19 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 05:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 22:05 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-20 10:18 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 10:49 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-20 11:19 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 11:53 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 14:44 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 15:42 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 13:43 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 13:54 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-15 07:11 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 08:39 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-19 05:27 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 15:55 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-20 03:28 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 12:09 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-20 14:45 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-28 20:58 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-29 20:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-20 08:58 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 06:30 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 22:36 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 08:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 01:49 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-04 11:07 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 13:41 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 15:38 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-22 12:32 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-22 16:20 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-22 17:04 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 06:43 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Udo Steinbach <trashcan@udoline.de> - 2022-12-14 18:43 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 20:06 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-14 22:14 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-14 22:26 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-15 10:26 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-15 12:40 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 08:54 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 15:18 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-12 09:38 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-12 16:32 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 08:13 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-13 17:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 11:10 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 09:33 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 14:16 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 08:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 15:20 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-14 11:54 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 09:40 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-14 22:15 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-15 10:34 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-09 13:05 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 07:04 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-28 12:25 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-29 20:27 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 15:25 -0600
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2022-12-10 16:29 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 15:39 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 07:10 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-12 09:49 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 11:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Udo Steinbach <trashcan@udoline.de> - 2022-12-14 20:03 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 20:18 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 09:06 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 15:39 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 07:10 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 13:46 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 07:10 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 18:39 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 11:20 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 16:03 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 14:31 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 16:04 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-13 00:33 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 17:13 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 17:25 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-13 01:47 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 17:48 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 19:47 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 19:51 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 19:53 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 20:08 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-13 11:38 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 13:09 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2022-12-15 22:29 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 18:29 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-14 08:38 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 14:23 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-14 08:36 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 23:25 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2022-12-17 21:01 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 09:15 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 15:48 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 16:06 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 19:11 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 21:09 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 06:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 23:11 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 23:12 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 07:22 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 23:39 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 01:59 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 00:19 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 00:22 -0800
Page 12 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 17 Next page →
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-20 01:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87tu1qqwhx.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #88100 |
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>Get into your thick skull that just because *you* can understand
>>>>
>>>> Insults when losing argument. Tick.
>>>
>>> Insults? Maybe it's because I'm not a native English speaker, but
>>> this is the first time in my life I hear that "thick skull" is an
>>> insult. It just means "stubborn". Unless you think "stubborn" is
>>> also an insult.
>>
>> I am a native English speaker. Yes, "Get into your thick skull
>> ..." is an insult.
>
> Well, it was not originally my intent to use it as an insult.
>
> However, by this point I'm actually changing my mind. I just cannot
> believe why people are arguing for the sake of arguing, against
> something that should be extraordinarily non-controversial like
> "name your variables and functions clearly".
>
> Such a sentiment seems so highly controversial that now people are
> resorting to petty "you are now insulting me!!!" whining.
>
> What's wrong with people? This is absolutely insane.
>
>>> I myself can be quite stubborn at times. I don't find that very
>>> insulting.
>>>
>>> Maybe you also have a thin skin in addition to a thick skull...
>>
>> Also an insult.
>
> Then so be it. I don't care anymore. This entire thing is completely
> insane.
>
>> Nobody here is saying "clearer variable and function naming is a bad
>> thing".
>
> Actually they are. There are people here who in all seriousness are
> claiming that cryptic acronyms are literally easier to read and
> understand than names consisting of full words.
>
> I'm sorry, but I am not going to be convinced of that. I'm not insane.
> (There's another "insult", you're welcome.)
Feel free to pretend you've won an argument.
*PLONK*
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for XCOM Labs
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-20 10:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tns3n1$17n4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88109 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote: > Feel free to pretend you've won an argument. > > *PLONK* I just love this. A: "You have insulted me!!!" B: "It's not an insult." C: "Yes it is! It's an insult!" B: "It wasn't intended as an insult, but fine, if you want to take it as an insult, fine. I don't really care." D: "PLONK!!!!!" The more this thread continues, the more insane it becomes. And all this because I expressed my opinion on what I think makes code harder to understand. Incredible. Has everybody just gone completely insane all of a sudden? I can't even believe this thread, seriously.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-20 10:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87len2q66n.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #88109 |
People are of course free to continue posting in this thread, but I
suggest that it's gone beyond the point where any further discussion
would be constructive. No new points have been made in some time, and
no minds will be changed.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for XCOM Labs
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-20 10:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tns2b1$jnd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88100 |
On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 06:23:48 -0000 (UTC) Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >What's wrong with people? This is absolutely insane. Nothing is wrong with us, we're simply disagreeing with you. If you have a problem with that then I would suggest you're suffering from some kind of narcissistic personality disorder and you should get help.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-20 10:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tns3ql$17n4$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88115 |
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 06:23:48 -0000 (UTC) > Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >>What's wrong with people? This is absolutely insane. > > Nothing is wrong with us, we're simply disagreeing with you. If you have a > problem with that then I would suggest you're suffering from some kind of > narcissistic personality disorder and you should get help. You are the one whining previously about me "insulting" you. But apparently hypocrisy is A-ok. And all this because I expressed my opinion on what makes code less readable and understandable. This thread is completely insane. I cannot even believe it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-28 12:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86fsczuuec.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #88072 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes: > >> Maybe you also have a thin skin in addition to a thick skull... > > Also an insult. Saying someone has thin skin can be an insult, but it doesn't have to be. Some people are more sensitive than others. I have heard someone say something about how thin or thick someone's skin was, and the statement was made in a way that I would characterize as a most benevolent manner. Please note that I am not making any claims as to what Juha intended in his statement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-28 13:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87lemrp5t1.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #88281 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
>>> Maybe you also have a thin skin in addition to a thick skull...
>>
>> Also an insult.
>
> Saying someone has thin skin can be an insult, but it
> doesn't have to be. Some people are more sensitive
> than others. I have heard someone say something about
> how thin or thick someone's skin was, and the statement
> was made in a way that I would characterize as a most
> benevolent manner.
>
> Please note that I am not making any claims as to what
> Juha intended in his statement.
I was making a claim as to what Juha intended. By raising an irrelevant
point about a figure of speech, you risk rekindling an argument that had
died out more than a week ago. Please don't do that.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for XCOM Labs
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-29 20:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <toksp5$9g$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88282 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote: > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >>> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes: >>>> Maybe you also have a thin skin in addition to a thick skull... >>> >>> Also an insult. >> >> Saying someone has thin skin can be an insult, but it >> doesn't have to be. Some people are more sensitive >> than others. I have heard someone say something about >> how thin or thick someone's skin was, and the statement >> was made in a way that I would characterize as a most >> benevolent manner. >> >> Please note that I am not making any claims as to what >> Juha intended in his statement. > > I was making a claim as to what Juha intended. By raising an irrelevant > point about a figure of speech, you risk rekindling an argument that had > died out more than a week ago. Please don't do that. When someone starts arguing with "you are insulting me", you know that he doesn't have any *actual* argument. Especially when it comes to such a complete non-insult as "thick skull" (which just means "stubborn"). When this happens, the discussion has reached a point where one person is really, really grasping for straws, to have something, anything at all, to attack the other person with. The actual discussion is over and the childish namecalling has begun.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-20 05:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnriu8$gpf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88061 |
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>I have had to read inordinate amounts of code written by other people, >>having to fully understand what the code is doing, for several years >>now. You cannot make what I have seen clearer and easier to understand > > Wow, a whole several years. I've been doing it since the mid 90s and I suspect > others on here much longer than that. You have been writing unit tests for existing software, trying to achieve 100% code coverage (something that *really* requires understanding what every single line of code is doing) as your full-time job, 40 hours a week, non-stop, since the 90's? You must have the most boring life I can imagine. Or, alternatively, you don't know what you are talking about. When I say that I have been having to read and understand other people's code for several years now, I really mean it. I do not mean that occasionally I have had to review what someone has done. I really, really mean it. Every. Single. Line. Of. Code. Full time job. You can't write unit tests for existing code unless you really, really understand what the code is doing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-19 22:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tnrjbo$k6ea$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88092 |
On 12/19/2022 9:58 PM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> I have had to read inordinate amounts of code written by other people,
>>> having to fully understand what the code is doing, for several years
>>> now. You cannot make what I have seen clearer and easier to understand
>>
>> Wow, a whole several years. I've been doing it since the mid 90s and I suspect
>> others on here much longer than that.
>
> You have been writing unit tests for existing software, trying to achieve
> 100% code coverage (something that *really* requires understanding what
> every single line of code is doing) as your full-time job, 40 hours a
> week, non-stop, since the 90's?
>
> You must have the most boring life I can imagine.
>
> Or, alternatively, you don't know what you are talking about.
>
> When I say that I have been having to read and understand other people's
> code for several years now, I really mean it. I do not mean that
> occasionally I have had to review what someone has done. I really,
> really mean it. Every. Single. Line. Of. Code. Full time job.
> You can't write unit tests for existing code unless you really,
> really understand what the code is doing.
For instance, hey everybody, this function in my own personal code plots
an n-ary unit cube in one of my experimental vector fields. Can you
automatically get it? Or, so you need some/any clarifications, crap
code, or what? Keep in mind that is personal...
glm is the following opensource header only lib:
https://github.com/g-truc/glm
___________________________
// GRID!!!!! :^D Okay, let's go...
void
build_field_grid_data(
field_data& fdata,
unsigned long grid_n
) {
// double check
{
/*
// front face
fdata.m_field.push_back({ {-1, -1, 1, 0}, -1, {1, 0, 0, 0} });
fdata.m_field.push_back({ {1, -1, 1, 0}, -1, {0, 1, 0, 0} });
fdata.m_field.push_back({ {1, 1, 1, 0}, -1, {0, 0, 1, 0} } );
fdata.m_field.push_back({ {-1, 1, 1, 0}, -1, {0, 1, 1, 0} });
*/
}
glm::vec3 grid_min = { -1, -1, -1 };
glm::vec3 grid_max = { 1, 1, 1 };
glm::vec3 grid_dif = grid_max - grid_min;
float normal_base = 1.f / grid_n;
unsigned long grid_iter_n = grid_n + 1;
for (unsigned long z = 0; z < grid_iter_n; ++z)
{
for (unsigned long y = 0; y < grid_iter_n; ++y)
{
for (unsigned long x = 0; x < grid_iter_n; ++x)
{
glm::vec3 normal = {
x * normal_base,
y * normal_base,
z * normal_base
};
glm::vec3 p0 = grid_min + grid_dif * normal;
glm::vec4 field_p0 = { p0, 0 };
float field_mass = -1;
fdata.m_field.push_back({ field_p0, field_mass -1, {
normal.x, normal.y, 1 - normal.z, 0} });
}
}
}
fdata.m_field.push_back({ {-3, 0, 0, 0}, 500, {1, 1, 1, 1}});
fdata.m_field.push_back({ {3, 0, 0, 0}, 500, {1, 1, 1, 1} });
}
___________________________
The same code I used to plot the field points in:
https://youtu.be/KRkKZj9s3wk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-20 10:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tns26d$hfp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88092 |
On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 05:58:34 -0000 (UTC) Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>I have had to read inordinate amounts of code written by other people, >>>having to fully understand what the code is doing, for several years >>>now. You cannot make what I have seen clearer and easier to understand >> >> Wow, a whole several years. I've been doing it since the mid 90s and I >suspect >> others on here much longer than that. > >You have been writing unit tests for existing software, trying to achieve >100% code coverage (something that *really* requires understanding what >every single line of code is doing) as your full-time job, 40 hours a >week, non-stop, since the 90's? Not many jobs involve green field coding. 90% of them are debugging and/or adding features to pre-existing code. >You must have the most boring life I can imagine. > >Or, alternatively, you don't know what you are talking about. I've coded to SIL4 military level (which IS extremely boring) so I think I have a vague clue what I'm talking about. >You can't write unit tests for existing code unless you really, >really understand what the code is doing. No shit. Any more gems from your wealth of experience? Perhaps "You can't write C++ unless you know C++". Or maybe "Gotos can be dangerous"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-20 10:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tns404$17n4$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88114 |
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > No shit. Any more gems from your wealth of experience? Perhaps "You can't > write C++ unless you know C++". Or maybe "Gotos can be dangerous"? Are you even aware of how you are acting, because I expressed my opinion on what makes readable and unreadable code? Just stop for a moment to read what you are writing. Consider what kind of condescending tone you are using... because someone expressed his opinion on coding style. (Yes, you are just going to answer "you did it too!" Spare me.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-20 11:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tns5nd$6ik$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88119 |
On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 10:49:42 -0000 (UTC) Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> No shit. Any more gems from your wealth of experience? Perhaps "You can't >> write C++ unless you know C++". Or maybe "Gotos can be dangerous"? > >Are you even aware of how you are acting, because I expressed my >opinion on what makes readable and unreadable code? > >Just stop for a moment to read what you are writing. Consider what kind >of condescending tone you are using... because someone expressed his >opinion on coding style. > >(Yes, you are just going to answer "you did it too!" Spare me.) Go have a long look in the mirror. This conversation is over.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-20 11:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tns7nj$13tt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88120 |
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 10:49:42 -0000 (UTC) > Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>> No shit. Any more gems from your wealth of experience? Perhaps "You can't >>> write C++ unless you know C++". Or maybe "Gotos can be dangerous"? >> >>Are you even aware of how you are acting, because I expressed my >>opinion on what makes readable and unreadable code? >> >>Just stop for a moment to read what you are writing. Consider what kind >>of condescending tone you are using... because someone expressed his >>opinion on coding style. >> >>(Yes, you are just going to answer "you did it too!" Spare me.) > > Go have a long look in the mirror. This conversation is over. And of course you wouldn't spare me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-19 14:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tnpprh$bn40$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88027 |
On 19/12/2022 09:16, Juha Nieminen wrote: > Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>> What's so hard to understand in the fact that the name 'i' does not tell >>> me _anything_ about what it's going to be used for? And that if it's >> >> Its convention. 'i' has been the top level index counter since 1980s BASIC. >> You'll probably find it used as an index var in for() in just about every large >> C and C++ program ever written. > > We don't live in the 1980's anymore, nor are we writing BASIC. > Bad habits don't become good habits just because they have existed > for a long time. Sometimes they do. Then they are called "idioms". I don't know if the use of "i" as an index has ever been considered a bad habit - if so, perhaps Fourier is the man to blame for using it for summation some 200 years ago. (The bust on Fourier's grave in Paris looks very much like Voldemort in the Harry Potter films, so perhaps it /is/ evil!) > >>> This becomes *especially* important with nested loop. You wouldn't >>> believe how significantly clearer it is when each loop variable is >>> named clearly after what it's going to index, compared to if they >>> are just named 'i', 'j' and 'k'. >> >> Clearer for you maybe. For me i, j and k would be perfectly clear. > > Well, exactly. > > When you are *writing* the code, *you* know what that 'i' is going > to index when you are writing the for-statement because you have a > clear picture in your mind of what that for-statement is doing. > However, when I am *reading* your code, *I* don't know what that > 'i' is going to index because I don't yet know the intent of that > for-loop. Additionally, the 'i' buried deep into the for-loop > body makes it harder to find with a quick visual scan. I think you are exaggerating beyond all bounds of reason. Can you /really/ claim you think "i" is not clear in a simple "for" loop? This is not a notation invented by Muttley - it has been standard in almost every programming language except APL. >>> If long-winded names are bad, then why do you use long words when >>> you write English? Why don't you contract every word you use? >> >> I guess you've never used SMS. > > I don't see you using cryptic abbreviations in your English prose > here... /Cryptic/ abbreviations are counter-productive. Clear and obvious ones (clear and obvious from the context, and to the reader) are helpful. You had no problem understanding "SMS", but it would have taken more effort to understand what he meant if he had written "short messaging service".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-19 15:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnq0pb$1rr1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88043 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > I think you are exaggerating beyond all bounds of reason. Can you > /really/ claim you think "i" is not clear in a simple "for" loop? This > is not a notation invented by Muttley - it has been standard in almost > every programming language except APL. I have read enough code written by others to say that yes, with perhaps the exception of very short one-liners, naming the loop variable after the thing it's indexing makes the code clearer than using a short abstract name that says nothing. The importance of this grows about linearly with the length of the loop body, and exponentially with each nested loop. You wouldn't believe how much easier it is to read and understand especially nested loops where each loop variable is clearly named after the thing it's indexing or counting. You don't have to guess. You don't have to remember. It says it directly. It makes it so much easier to understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-20 13:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tnsakl$mgiv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88056 |
On 19/12/2022 16:42, Juha Nieminen wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> I think you are exaggerating beyond all bounds of reason. Can you >> /really/ claim you think "i" is not clear in a simple "for" loop? This >> is not a notation invented by Muttley - it has been standard in almost >> every programming language except APL. > > I have read enough code written by others to say that yes, with perhaps > the exception of very short one-liners, naming the loop variable after > the thing it's indexing makes the code clearer than using a short > abstract name that says nothing. > > The importance of this grows about linearly with the length of the > loop body, and exponentially with each nested loop. > > You wouldn't believe how much easier it is to read and understand > especially nested loops where each loop variable is clearly named > after the thing it's indexing or counting. You don't have to guess. > You don't have to remember. It says it directly. It makes it so > much easier to understand. You are right - I wouldn't believe it. I /do/ believe that if the rest of the code is not clear, the functions are too long, the logic too convoluted, the documentation too poor, the code is poorly structured, the layout is poor, or many other failings for clear code - I /do/ believe that /then/ it might be less bad if the loop index had a longer name. But if ever I see code where I think "that loop variable should have a better name than just 'i'", I know that there are many things that are much more important to making the code clear. And once you fix the important stuff, the loop variable "i" is usually clearer than any alternative. Poor legibility of code is a problem - we all agree on that. Making some identifiers longer or more descriptive is not the solution - at best it covers up the real problems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-20 13:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnsequ$bpk$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88126 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> You wouldn't believe how much easier it is to read and understand >> especially nested loops where each loop variable is clearly named >> after the thing it's indexing or counting. You don't have to guess. >> You don't have to remember. It says it directly. It makes it so >> much easier to understand. > > You are right - I wouldn't believe it. Of course you don't. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. But you won't be convincing me any time soon. I know what I am seeing, when I read code. You cannot gaslight me into seeing otherwise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-15 07:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <539f793b-c112-4d35-a907-64351d1e2835n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #87901 |
On Wednesday, 14 December 2022 at 14:28:41 UTC+2, Juha Nieminen wrote: > Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > >>> 'i' is VERY common as an index value in for(). > >> > >>But since 'i' does not refer to anything specific, it's better and more > > > > It doesn't need to, its simply an index counter. Everyone knows it as an > > index counter. > > What's so hard to understand in the fact that the name 'i' does not tell > me _anything_ about what it's going to be used for? And that if it's > named so that it tells what it's going to index, it makes the for loop > line immediately clearer, because it's directly telling me what we > are looping. Also, if the amount of code in the loop is even slightly > long, a quick visual scan will reveal all the instances of eg. > "column_index" a lot easier than an "i" buried somewhere inside > some square brackets at random places. Text where recently introduced (within 3-4 code lines) variable with long name participates multiple times feels far from easier to read. > > This becomes *especially* important with nested loop. You wouldn't > believe how significantly clearer it is when each loop variable is > named clearly after what it's going to index, compared to if they > are just named 'i', 'j' and 'k'. These are abstract claims. Demonstrate? To me it perhaps depends. If these loop over 'X', 'Y' and 'Z' dimensions then it is indeed confusing. What you typically write like "foobar" ... to me just "f" is lot better as "foobar" anyway means nothing. > > I honestly cannot understand what's so controversial about this. > It should be quite self-evident: When you express what it's being > used for, it's much easier to understand than if it's just a > short generic name that says nothing. If we anyway see within few previous lines that "i" is index of current image: for(size_t i = 0; i < images.size(); ++i) or "k" is index of current key then names "index_of_current_image" and "index_of_current_key" would not help at all. Opposite has been evident. Demonstrate how it is not. > >>I honestly cannot understand why you are even opposing that. > > > > Long winded names are as bad as names that are meaningless. > That's just a completely asinine assertion. > > If long-winded names are bad, then why do you use long words when > you write English? Why don't you contract every word you use? It is similar to spoken language where we say "it" or "he", in mathematics where we say dancing floor's length "l", starting time of dance "t0" and velocity of dancer "v". Also in legal texts we define shorthands for not to write same thing over and over again. > > You use full English words because if you were to contract every > word your text would become illegible. Why is code any different? You are mistaken. Pronouns like it, him, they, there, then are used massively in spoken language. > > I just find it baffling how this seems to be so controversial. > *Tell what you are doing* in your code. Don't make it cryptic and > obscure for no reason. This should be good programming 101. > We are not writing code for the obfuscated C code contest. We do exactly same what is done in spoken language, mathematics or legal texts. We use shorthands. That is not done for obfuscating but for DRY. Don't repeat yourself. > >>> In that case whats the point of having a namespace at all? You can achieve > >>> exactly the same result C style with function naming. Eg: instead of > >>> mylib::func() you can just call it mylib_func(). > >> > >>If you want to do that, go right ahead. > > > > Its exactly what you're doing except you don't seem to realise it. > I fail to see the problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-19 08:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnp7v4$1uqg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87957 |
Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote: > Text where recently introduced (within 3-4 code lines) variable > with long name participates multiple times feels far from easier > to read. Are you basing that opinion on code that *you* have written, or are you basing it on code by other people that you have had to read? Because I am basing my opinion on tons and tons of code that I have had to read. Clearer variable names (such as loop variable names) make a world of a difference in understanding the code. When I'm writing code, I sometimes find myself instinctively and out of old bad habit using eg. loop variable names that are too short and too cryptic, and I have been trying to unlearn this bad habit and use clearer names. I myself can then see clearly the difference that makes when I have to read my own code much later. This is *especially* the case with nested loops. With some very short single loops you could perhaps get away with using single-letter index variables. But the longer the loops, and the more they are nested, the more important it becomes to name the loop variables clearly. > What you typically write like "foobar" ... to me just "f" is lot better > as "foobar" anyway means nothing. Then that name is poorly chosen. It's not about length. It's about clarity. The name should clearly express what the thing is for, or what it's doing. Why are people so obsessed with length? For the umpteenth time: Length doesn't matter. Length is irrelevant. It's not about making names longer or shorter. It's about making them more legible and easier to understand. Oftentimes that means making them longer, but that's just an irrelevant side-effect, not the core goal. Names do not become clearer if they are shorter or longer. They become clearer based on their content. Sometimes clearer does mean longer, but that's just a side effect. > If we anyway see within few previous lines that "i" is index of > current image: for(size_t i = 0; i < images.size(); ++i) > or "k" is index of current key then names "index_of_current_image" > and "index_of_current_key" would not help at all. Opposite has been > evident. Demonstrate how it is not. I always love it when people give counter-examples by adding completely redundant words to the variable names, just for the sake of making them longer. "image_index" is a better name than "index_of_current_image" because it doesn't contain redundant information. (The fact that it's also shorter is irrelevant. As said, length does not matter.) Use as many (full English) words to express what the thing is for, but do not add redundant words that add no useful information. I still fail to undrestand how this is so controversial and worthy of such heavy opposition. We are not writing code for the Obfuscated C Code Contest here. > It is similar to spoken language where we say "it" or "he" There we go again with the length argument. How many times do I have to repeat that it's not about the length? A word being shorter or longer is completely irrelevant. It's not about the length of the word. It's about clarity and legibility. > in mathematics Mathematics is an extremely poor example because mathematicians are almost proud about the fact that their scribbles are as compressed and cryptic as possible. > Also in legal texts we define shorthands for > not to write same thing over and over again. As with length, also repetition does not matter. Legibility does. If repeating the same word twenty times makes the code more understanable, that's all that matters. The repetition itself is irrelevant. We don't need to save disk space. I could add a kind of corollary to my "use as many words as necessary, but no more" sentiment: "Repeat the same name in your code as many times as necessary, but no more." >> You use full English words because if you were to contract every >> word your text would become illegible. Why is code any different? > > You are mistaken. Pronouns like it, him, they, there, then are used > massively in spoken language. They are full words. They are not contractions or acronyms. > We do exactly same what is done in spoken language, mathematics > or legal texts. Using mathematics and legal text as examples of "legible" and "understandable" text is just hilarious. Legalese is anything but. As for spoken language, you don't speak using contractions. You speak using full words.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web