Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #89160 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-02-20 16:45 +0000 |
| Last post | 2023-02-21 08:15 -0800 |
| Articles | 6 on this page of 206 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-20 16:45 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-02-20 18:34 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Chris Vine <vine24683579@gmail.com> - 2023-02-20 11:16 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-02-20 21:39 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Chris Vine <vine24683579@gmail.com> - 2023-02-20 12:56 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Tony Oliver <guinness.tony@gmail.com> - 2023-02-20 16:17 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-21 01:57 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-21 09:15 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-21 12:31 +0200
Re: Is this safe? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-02-21 05:36 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Chris Vine <vine24683579@gmail.com> - 2023-02-21 02:19 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-02-21 14:16 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Ralf Goertz <me@myprovider.invalid> - 2023-02-21 14:40 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Chris Vine <vine24683579@gmail.com> - 2023-02-21 05:51 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-21 15:58 +0200
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-21 14:55 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-21 19:02 +0200
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-21 17:13 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-21 19:58 +0200
Re: Is this safe? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-02-21 12:15 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-21 23:41 +0200
Re: Is this safe? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-03-03 12:57 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Tony Oliver <guinness.tony@gmail.com> - 2023-02-20 16:14 -0800
Re: Is this safe? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-20 23:48 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-02-21 00:05 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-21 09:14 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-20 21:18 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-20 20:38 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-21 09:18 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2023-02-21 15:12 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-21 14:53 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-21 10:35 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-22 09:25 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 22:33 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 09:25 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-23 07:05 -0800
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-22 21:21 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-23 09:39 +0200
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 09:35 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-23 12:30 +0200
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 10:34 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-23 13:20 +0200
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 16:00 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-23 18:24 +0200
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 16:28 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-23 19:01 +0200
Re: Is this safe? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-23 11:57 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-23 19:12 +0200
Re: Is this safe? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-23 11:57 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-23 12:20 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-02-24 02:15 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-02-24 15:24 -0800
Re: Is this safe? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-24 02:14 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-23 07:18 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 16:01 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-23 11:50 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 14:41 -0800
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-23 19:44 +0100
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-23 15:02 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-02-23 14:49 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-23 16:25 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 16:10 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-23 20:46 +0100
Re: Is this safe? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-02-23 20:05 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 14:48 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-23 22:12 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-24 10:49 +0200
Re: Is this safe? Ralf Fassel <ralfixx@gmx.de> - 2023-02-24 11:36 +0100
Re: Is this safe? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-02-24 15:39 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-24 10:29 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-24 17:20 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-24 17:09 +0000
Re: Is this safe? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-02-24 17:32 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-25 11:56 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-25 16:04 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-25 15:47 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-25 19:13 +0100
Re: Is this safe? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-02-25 19:00 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-27 08:43 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-27 10:31 +0100
Re: Is this safe? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-02-25 16:40 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-24 18:42 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-25 11:58 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-25 16:25 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-25 15:45 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-25 19:15 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-27 08:44 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-27 10:40 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-27 10:24 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-27 18:31 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-28 08:38 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-02-28 01:33 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-28 10:17 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-02-28 02:43 -0800
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-28 16:50 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-02-28 03:19 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-28 08:10 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-02-28 05:42 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-28 09:39 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-02-28 07:12 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-28 11:29 -0500
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-28 16:45 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-02-28 11:31 -0800
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-28 20:59 +0100
Re: Is this safe? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 14:29 -0800
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-28 16:37 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-28 15:56 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-28 18:34 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-03-01 09:37 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 02:29 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-03-01 19:56 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 12:53 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-03-01 21:13 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 01:48 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-03-03 21:44 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-03-03 20:16 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-03-04 22:55 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-03-05 07:11 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-03-05 20:44 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Mr Flibble <flibble2@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2023-03-05 21:00 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-03-05 13:59 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Mr Flibble <flibble2@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2023-03-05 23:07 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-03-06 00:22 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-03-05 14:26 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-03-06 00:51 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-03-06 02:17 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-03-05 08:13 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-03-05 09:05 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-03-14 09:47 -0700
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 14:40 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-03-02 09:07 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-03-01 21:37 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-03-01 22:30 -0800
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-03-01 14:27 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 10:48 -0800
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-03-02 10:29 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-03-01 19:53 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-03-02 09:08 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 01:32 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-03-02 09:56 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-03-02 04:02 -0800
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-03-02 15:00 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-03-02 07:59 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-03-02 15:38 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-03-02 11:16 -0800
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-03-02 11:08 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-03-03 09:53 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-03-04 06:47 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-03-02 19:35 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2023-02-28 17:40 +0100
Re: Is this safe? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-24 12:16 -0500
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-24 18:39 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-02-24 10:03 -0800
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-24 19:59 +0100
Re: Is this safe? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2023-02-25 06:47 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-25 10:23 +0200
Re: Is this safe? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-23 07:16 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 14:31 -0800
Re: Is this safe? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 16:34 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 16:15 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2023-02-24 12:17 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-24 12:24 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-24 15:18 +0200
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-24 15:55 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-24 18:20 +0200
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-24 17:05 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-24 19:24 +0200
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-24 09:46 -0800
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-24 17:30 +0100
Re: Is this safe? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-02-23 17:12 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-02-23 02:47 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 15:59 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-23 11:55 -0500
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-23 08:37 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 14:19 -0800
Re: Is this safe? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-02-23 17:09 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-23 12:21 -0500
Re: Is this safe? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-02-23 17:55 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 13:57 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-23 17:28 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 21:44 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-02-24 08:48 -0800
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-21 10:58 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-22 09:26 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 22:34 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 09:29 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-23 08:28 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 17:16 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-23 22:24 -0800
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-22 21:30 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 09:31 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-23 22:00 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 22:20 -0800
Re: Is this safe? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-24 01:34 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-24 10:32 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-25 00:19 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-22 08:09 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-21 22:32 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-02-22 08:32 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 09:17 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-04-04 23:28 -0700
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-04-05 11:08 -0700
Re: Is this safe? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-20 09:22 -0700
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 16:42 -0700
Re: Is this safe? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-08 05:46 -0700
Re: Is this safe? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-21 08:15 -0800
Page 11 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-04 23:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86355e7sgo.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #89208 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: > >> Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 02/21/23 6:12 AM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: >>> >>>> Not what you're asking, but the common convention in C++ is to >>>> separate the type specification from the variable, i.e. `auto& c` >>>> not `auto &c`. >>>> >>>> But on the third and gripping hand, in this case I'd write `char& >>>> c`, since there's no advantage in `auto` here and it obscures >>>> things. >>> >>> Not really. This is a misleading "convention" that has no reason to >>> exist. In this case the `&` is a part of an individual declarator, >>> not a part of decl-specifier-seq. There's no reason to group the >>> syntactic elements differently. It achieves nothing. >> >> I would say it achieves less than nothing, because it's misleading. >> It's like writing a+b * c ; the grouping suggested by the spacing >> doesn't match the actual precedence. In almost all cases it's a >> mistake to use "contra-syntactic" spacing, and attaching '&' or '*' >> to a type specifier is definitely one of those mistakes. > > I prefer the "int *foo;" spacing (conventional in C) because it follows > the syntax, but the "int* foo;" spacing has become a convention in C++ > (probably because Stroustrup uses it in his books), and I use it in C++ > for that reason. I also avoid declarations where it would make a > difference to a human reader, like "int* foo, bar;". > > Most development is on existing code. It would be poor practice to use > the "better" spacing on new code while leaving the existing code (which > most likely uses the C++ conventional spacing) as it is. It would also > be poor practice to change all the spacing in a large body of existing > code. I'm sure there are lots of people who agree with that opinion, but that doesn't make it anything more than just an opinion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-05 11:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87ileagq15.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #89916 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>> Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 02/21/23 6:12 AM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>>>> Not what you're asking, but the common convention in C++ is to
>>>>> separate the type specification from the variable, i.e. `auto& c`
>>>>> not `auto &c`.
>>>>>
>>>>> But on the third and gripping hand, in this case I'd write `char&
>>>>> c`, since there's no advantage in `auto` here and it obscures
>>>>> things.
>>>>
>>>> Not really. This is a misleading "convention" that has no reason to
>>>> exist. In this case the `&` is a part of an individual declarator,
>>>> not a part of decl-specifier-seq. There's no reason to group the
>>>> syntactic elements differently. It achieves nothing.
>>>
>>> I would say it achieves less than nothing, because it's misleading.
>>> It's like writing a+b * c ; the grouping suggested by the spacing
>>> doesn't match the actual precedence. In almost all cases it's a
>>> mistake to use "contra-syntactic" spacing, and attaching '&' or '*'
>>> to a type specifier is definitely one of those mistakes.
>>
>> I prefer the "int *foo;" spacing (conventional in C) because it follows
>> the syntax, but the "int* foo;" spacing has become a convention in C++
>> (probably because Stroustrup uses it in his books), and I use it in C++
>> for that reason. I also avoid declarations where it would make a
>> difference to a human reader, like "int* foo, bar;".
>>
>> Most development is on existing code. It would be poor practice to use
>> the "better" spacing on new code while leaving the existing code (which
>> most likely uses the C++ conventional spacing) as it is. It would also
>> be poor practice to change all the spacing in a large body of existing
>> code.
>
> I'm sure there are lots of people who agree with that opinion,
> but that doesn't make it anything more than just an opinion.
Obviously.
Did you have anything *useful* to add?
--
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 | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-20 09:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86wmyuzh71.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #89930 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: > >> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >>> >>>> Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 02/21/23 6:12 AM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Not what you're asking, but the common convention in C++ is to >>>>>> separate the type specification from the variable, i.e. `auto& c` >>>>>> not `auto &c`. >>>>>> >>>>>> But on the third and gripping hand, in this case I'd write `char& >>>>>> c`, since there's no advantage in `auto` here and it obscures >>>>>> things. >>>>> >>>>> Not really. This is a misleading "convention" that has no reason to >>>>> exist. In this case the `&` is a part of an individual declarator, >>>>> not a part of decl-specifier-seq. There's no reason to group the >>>>> syntactic elements differently. It achieves nothing. >>>> >>>> I would say it achieves less than nothing, because it's misleading. >>>> It's like writing a+b * c ; the grouping suggested by the spacing >>>> doesn't match the actual precedence. In almost all cases it's a >>>> mistake to use "contra-syntactic" spacing, and attaching '&' or '*' >>>> to a type specifier is definitely one of those mistakes. >>> >>> I prefer the "int *foo;" spacing (conventional in C) because it follows >>> the syntax, but the "int* foo;" spacing has become a convention in C++ >>> (probably because Stroustrup uses it in his books), and I use it in C++ >>> for that reason. I also avoid declarations where it would make a >>> difference to a human reader, like "int* foo, bar;". >>> >>> Most development is on existing code. It would be poor practice to use >>> the "better" spacing on new code while leaving the existing code (which >>> most likely uses the C++ conventional spacing) as it is. It would also >>> be poor practice to change all the spacing in a large body of existing >>> code. >> >> I'm sure there are lots of people who agree with that opinion, >> but that doesn't make it anything more than just an opinion. > > Obviously. > > Did you have anything *useful* to add? As a rule I don't like to participate in discussions of programming style that are purely subjective. I object to assertions that are solely statements of opinion being made as though they were something more than that. When you have something to say that is more than simply statements of personal opinion, then I expect I might have something useful to say about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-20 16:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87lefaqhez.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #91163 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>>>> Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 02/21/23 6:12 AM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>>>>>> Not what you're asking, but the common convention in C++ is to
>>>>>>> separate the type specification from the variable, i.e. `auto& c`
>>>>>>> not `auto &c`.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But on the third and gripping hand, in this case I'd write `char&
>>>>>>> c`, since there's no advantage in `auto` here and it obscures
>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not really. This is a misleading "convention" that has no reason to
>>>>>> exist. In this case the `&` is a part of an individual declarator,
>>>>>> not a part of decl-specifier-seq. There's no reason to group the
>>>>>> syntactic elements differently. It achieves nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would say it achieves less than nothing, because it's misleading.
>>>>> It's like writing a+b * c ; the grouping suggested by the spacing
>>>>> doesn't match the actual precedence. In almost all cases it's a
>>>>> mistake to use "contra-syntactic" spacing, and attaching '&' or '*'
>>>>> to a type specifier is definitely one of those mistakes.
>>>>
>>>> I prefer the "int *foo;" spacing (conventional in C) because it follows
>>>> the syntax, but the "int* foo;" spacing has become a convention in C++
>>>> (probably because Stroustrup uses it in his books), and I use it in C++
>>>> for that reason. I also avoid declarations where it would make a
>>>> difference to a human reader, like "int* foo, bar;".
>>>>
>>>> Most development is on existing code. It would be poor practice to use
>>>> the "better" spacing on new code while leaving the existing code (which
>>>> most likely uses the C++ conventional spacing) as it is. It would also
>>>> be poor practice to change all the spacing in a large body of existing
>>>> code.
>>>
>>> I'm sure there are lots of people who agree with that opinion,
>>> but that doesn't make it anything more than just an opinion.
>>
>> Obviously.
>>
>> Did you have anything *useful* to add?
>
> As a rule I don't like to participate in discussions of programming
> style that are purely subjective.
Then by all means don't.
> I object to assertions that are solely statements of opinion being
> made as though they were something more than that.
I don't believe I did that. What I wrote (several months ago)
was partly my opinion, partly what I believe to be facts. I did
not intend to present it as anything else. (And I don't think what
I wrote was particularly controversial.)
> When you have something to say that is more than simply statements
> of personal opinion, then I expect I might have something useful
> to say about it.
If you have nothing useful to say, as appears to be the case here, I
suggest saying nothing.
Should I configure my newsreader to add an "X-In-My-Opinion:"
header to everything I post? (To be clear, I will not do so.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-08 05:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86ttt9bt1x.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #91172 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > If you have nothing useful to say, as appears to be the case > here, I suggest saying nothing. I follow my own judgment as to whether what I say is relevant or useful. I expect you do likewise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-21 08:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tt2qnf$166v7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89175 |
On 02/21/23 1:18 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > I can't believe I needed to explain what I meant by safe. I was not talking > about character encoding FFS, I simply used toupper as an example. > > Ok, is this safe: > > for(auto &c: s) c = 'x'; > > Or will it screw up the string object or have no effect in some cases just > as altering the contents returned by the c_str() pointer can sometimes have? What you do need to explain is the underlying roots/origins of your question. For anyone familiar with the language the above question will seem trivial, meaning that people will normally assume that you meant something more elaborate than the above. Yes, the above is fine. And, BTW, the original `c_str()` issue is no longer relevant. Starting from C++11 `c_str()` points to the same location as `data()`, i.e. it is required to point to the same controlled sequence that you access by all other means. -- Best regards, Andrey
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web