Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #72243 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-03-13 00:13 +0100 |
| Last post | 2020-03-21 01:43 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 122 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
Structured binding considered harmful jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-03-13 00:13 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com> - 2020-03-13 00:46 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-03-14 09:10 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-03-13 09:40 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-03-14 09:05 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-03-14 03:19 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-03-15 11:08 +0000
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-03-15 09:46 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2020-03-15 19:27 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-03-15 15:15 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2020-03-16 05:23 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2020-03-16 05:54 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-03-16 00:20 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-13 23:08 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-03-14 08:59 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-14 10:09 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-03-14 18:32 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-14 18:33 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-15 17:50 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-03-16 00:11 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-16 05:24 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-16 06:46 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-16 12:52 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-16 08:32 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-16 13:51 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-16 20:06 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-17 06:37 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-17 07:17 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-17 18:37 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2020-03-17 18:50 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-18 06:30 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-18 11:38 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-18 08:17 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-18 13:19 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-18 08:31 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-18 14:15 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-18 10:13 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-18 15:45 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-18 11:36 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-18 17:59 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-18 13:18 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-18 18:27 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-18 14:41 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-18 19:46 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-18 19:46 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-19 06:41 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-19 07:02 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-19 12:41 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-03-19 06:10 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-19 14:15 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-19 19:23 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-20 09:18 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-03-20 05:31 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-20 13:40 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-03-20 08:50 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2020-03-20 09:30 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-03-20 10:13 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2020-03-20 10:36 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2020-03-21 12:06 +1300
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-03-20 16:37 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2020-03-20 17:17 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-03-21 10:09 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2020-03-21 11:21 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-03-21 13:09 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-03-21 22:33 +0000
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-03-20 17:30 +0000
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2020-03-20 10:49 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-03-20 18:47 +0000
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-20 17:41 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-20 18:06 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-21 06:31 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-21 09:50 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-21 14:59 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-21 10:42 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-21 16:09 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-21 11:12 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-20 18:05 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2020-03-20 15:57 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-20 23:23 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-03-20 21:08 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Ralf Goertz <me@myprovider.invalid> - 2020-03-21 08:24 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2020-03-21 01:36 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-21 06:30 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-21 09:51 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-03-22 13:22 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-03-22 13:24 +0000
Re: Structured binding considered harmful James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-03-22 06:32 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2020-03-22 07:59 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-22 13:02 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-03-22 17:09 +0000
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-22 13:35 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-03-22 17:54 +0000
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-22 17:19 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-03-22 21:46 +0000
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-22 19:06 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful danielaparker@gmail.com - 2020-03-22 17:11 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-22 22:16 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2020-03-25 20:38 +0000
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-25 20:01 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful danielaparker@gmail.com - 2020-03-22 10:58 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2020-03-23 07:41 +1300
Re: Structured binding considered harmful James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-03-22 15:01 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-22 10:24 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-03-20 20:15 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-03-21 08:32 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-03-21 11:27 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2020-03-21 13:34 +0000
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2020-03-21 07:11 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-21 10:45 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2020-03-21 08:03 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2020-03-19 08:24 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2020-03-19 09:05 +1300
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-18 19:47 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-03-18 11:43 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-18 19:48 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-03-18 12:37 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-03-16 16:11 +0100
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2020-03-17 08:17 +1300
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2020-03-16 13:12 -0700
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2020-03-16 20:13 -0400
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-03-17 19:46 +0000
Re: Structured binding considered harmful Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2020-03-21 01:43 -0700
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-20 17:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3ae246b8-7e22-46d0-a1c2-afce4448cd8a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #72429 |
On Friday, March 20, 2020 at 7:37:25 PM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Friday, 20 March 2020 19:36:35 UTC+2, Daniel wrote:
> >
> > I would use "it", for a local iterator variable :-) Also i/j/k for indices.
>
> Good idea, "it" instead of "iter" saves whole whopping 2 characters from:
>
> std::vector<std::pair<std::string, int>>::const_iterator it
> = container.begin();
>
Personally, I would use
auto it = container.begin();
(I'm reading a lot of rust code these days, where the convention is to use
very short names.)
> Ironically from "auto e" I would at least know that it is copy.
Yes, but a copy of what? In the case of a proxied container, that would be
a copy of a proxy, which you probably wouldn't want. A proxy cannot be safely assumed to have a life longer than a single statement.
Daniel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-21 10:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f38c745f-b6cf-4a7b-b8e1-c714944c16d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #72430 |
On Saturday, 21 March 2020 02:17:22 UTC+2, Daniel wrote: > On Friday, March 20, 2020 at 7:37:25 PM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote: > > On Friday, 20 March 2020 19:36:35 UTC+2, Daniel wrote: > > > > > > > I would use "it", for a local iterator variable :-) Also i/j/k for indices. > > > > Good idea, "it" instead of "iter" saves whole whopping 2 characters from: > > > > std::vector<std::pair<std::string, int>>::const_iterator it > > = container.begin(); > > > Personally, I would use > > auto it = container.begin(); And I don't use neither "it" nor "container" for name of anything. > (I'm reading a lot of rust code these days, where the convention is to use > very short names.) Perhaps people are translating their legacy algorithms from FORTRAN to see how it performs. > > Ironically from "auto e" I would at least know that it is copy. > > Yes, but a copy of what? In the case of a proxied container, that would be > a copy of a proxy, which you probably wouldn't want. A proxy cannot be safely assumed to have a life longer than a single statement. I do not have nor use peroxided containers. Several tools warn me about std::vector<bool> usage. It is not container nor does it contain bools. Such things are worse than raw pointers that at least lack bloat. You use it? Maybe you overload operator,() and unary operator&() as well ... I don't and my tools warn about lot of such usage of nuisance language features that should not be there at first place.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-21 11:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <49edec1c-12d8-410a-9f03-7205cd7bc404@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #72451 |
On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 1:09:21 PM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote: > > And I don't use neither "it" ... > > people are translating their legacy algorithms from FORTRAN ... > > I do not have nor use peroxided containers ... > Maybe you overload operator,() and unary operator&() as well ... I'm sorry if my post has made you angry and upset. I don't know how to respond to any of your statements above. My point was narrow, and fully expostulated in my other posts. Best regards, Daniel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-21 13:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5e4b6ae3-ecd1-4a2b-8721-4786302a6965@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #72452 |
On Saturday, 21 March 2020 20:21:30 UTC+2, Daniel wrote: > On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 1:09:21 PM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote: > > > > And I don't use neither "it" ... > > > > people are translating their legacy algorithms from FORTRAN ... > > > > I do not have nor use peroxided containers ... > > > Maybe you overload operator,() and unary operator&() as well ... > > I'm sorry if my post has made you angry and upset. I don't know how to > respond to any of your statements above. My point was narrow, and fully > expostulated in my other posts. Nah, don't be sorry. It is not you. It is just me being grumpy lately because of miles of such code to help with. For whatever reasons people prefer to abuse tools. So there is auto, lets split into two schools, one that tries to overuse it and other that tries to avoid it entirely. Then let members of both schools to work over same code-base. Same about naming either use one letter names or over 30 letter names. Raw pointers are dangerous? Ok, lets make everything that god damned shared_ptr. Can make sub-repositories? So lets make hundred of those for every taste but lets make one or two of those huge. And be sure to arrange those sub-repositories as directed graph with cycles.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-21 22:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnr7d5h2.1r7q.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #72455 |
On Sat, 2020-03-21, Öö Tiib wrote: ... > Nah, don't be sorry. It is not you. It is just me being grumpy lately > because of miles of such code to help with. For whatever reasons > people prefer to abuse tools. So there is auto, lets split into > two schools, one that tries to overuse it and other that tries to > avoid it entirely. Then let members of both schools to work over same > code-base. Same about naming either use one letter names or over > 30 letter names. Raw pointers are dangerous? Ok, lets make everything that > god damned shared_ptr. Can make sub-repositories? So lets make hundred > of those for every taste but lets make one or two of those huge. And be > sure to arrange those sub-repositories as directed graph with cycles. You may be interested to hear that I laughed out loud when I read that. :-) I know exactly what you mean, and it is depressing ... but it's kind of funny, too. The software company or project that can overcome that (both the "two camps" thing and the "more extreme is always better" thing) would be in a very good position. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-20 17:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnr79vd2.1r7q.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #72418 |
On Fri, 2020-03-20, Daniel wrote:
...
> Nonetheless, Bonita's point, that while usually not necessary to know the
> exact type, sometime it is, is valid. Looking only at
>
> for (const auto &v:container)
> {
>
> without knowing more about the container, it is not possible to know
> by inspection whether type deduction rules via auto will do the right
> thing.
Do you have any examples of containers where that doesn't do the right
thing? (Assuming the loop just wants to visit the elements in
sequence, and not try to modify 'container' or anything.)
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-20 10:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bdee6e01-0fde-4747-b515-c5ac493cbbe1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #72421 |
On Friday, March 20, 2020 at 1:30:23 PM UTC-4, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>
> Do you have any examples of containers where that doesn't do the right
> thing? (Assuming the loop just wants to visit the elements in
> sequence, and not try to modify 'container' or anything.)
>
A trivial example is
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
void f(bool)
{
std::cout << "bool!\n";
}
template <class T>
void f(T)
{
std::cout << "not bool!\n";
}
int main()
{
std::vector<bool> v = { true,false };
for (const auto& item : v)
{
f(item);
}
}
Output:
not bool!
not bool!
More generally, with proxied containers, all bets are off, think expression
templates or lazy initialization.
Daniel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-20 18:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnr7a3ts.1r7q.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #72423 |
On Fri, 2020-03-20, Daniel wrote: > On Friday, March 20, 2020 at 1:30:23 PM UTC-4, Jorgen Grahn wrote: >> >> Do you have any examples of containers where that doesn't do the right >> thing? (Assuming the loop just wants to visit the elements in >> sequence, and not try to modify 'container' or anything.) ... > std::vector<bool> ... > More generally, with proxied containers, all bets are off, think expression > templates or lazy initialization. Ah, thanks. I don't think I've ever seen any of those in the wild. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-20 17:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r52rnb$8ec$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #72417 |
>>> If know C++, you often don't need to know the exact type, and >>> therefore don't need to read the part where the container was >>> defined or declared. That's particularly true if, as specified, >>> the code was well-written. >> Usually not. > We have indeed seen that your code is usually not well written, > but ... it is not fault of ours. Try harder? It doesn't depend on how good the code is written. You would have to have a crystal bulb to guess the type auto refers to in this case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam <sam@email-scan.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-20 18:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cone.1584741985.221169.180278.1004@monster.email-scan.com> |
| In reply to | #72419 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Bonita Montero writes: >>>> If know C++, you often don't need to know the exact type, and >>>> therefore don't need to read the part where the container was >>>> defined or declared. That's particularly true if, as specified, >>>> the code was well-written. > >>> Usually not. > >> We have indeed seen that your code is usually not well written, >> but ... it is not fault of ours. Try harder? > > It doesn't depend on how good the code is written. You would have to > have a crystal bulb to guess the type auto refers to in this case. No, the type it refers to is very obvious.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-21 06:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r548r8$q80$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #72426 |
>> It doesn't depend on how good the code is written. You would have to >> have a crystal bulb to guess the type auto refers to in this case. > No, the type it refers to is very obvious. ... if you know the type of the container.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam <sam@email-scan.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-21 09:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cone.1584798638.697338.194011.1004@monster.email-scan.com> |
| In reply to | #72435 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Bonita Montero writes: >>> It doesn't depend on how good the code is written. You would have to >>> have a crystal bulb to guess the type auto refers to in this case. > >> No, the type it refers to is very obvious. > > ... if you know the type of the container. A real C++ developer doesn't need to know the type of a container in order to implement well-defined algorithms. You better everyone who writes template code that what they're doing is impossible. They're writing code that operates on templates whose type they don't know, after all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-21 14:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r556kq$otq$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #72442 |
> You better everyone who writes template code that what they're doing is > impossible. They're writing code that operates on templates whose type > they don't know, after all. Usually the container isn't a template-parameter itself so you know the type of the container.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam <sam@email-scan.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-21 10:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cone.1584801764.926599.3850.1004@monster.email-scan.com> |
| In reply to | #72444 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Bonita Montero writes: >> You better everyone who writes template code that what they're doing is >> impossible. They're writing code that operates on templates whose type they >> don't know, after all. > > Usually the container isn't a template-parameter itself so you know > the type of the container. Completely wrong, you're just not very experienced with template metaprogramming.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-21 16:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r55amg$gr5$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #72446 |
>> Usually the container isn't a template-parameter itself so you know >> the type of the container. > Completely wrong, you're just not very experienced with template > metaprogramming. You didn't understand what I wrote.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam <sam@email-scan.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-21 11:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cone.1584803542.996973.3850.1004@monster.email-scan.com> |
| In reply to | #72449 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Bonita Montero writes: >>> Usually the container isn't a template-parameter itself so you know >>> the type of the container. > >> Completely wrong, you're just not very experienced with template >> metaprogramming. > > You didn't understand what I wrote. Only the voices in your head understand what you write.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam <sam@email-scan.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-20 18:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cone.1584741905.87390.180278.1004@monster.email-scan.com> |
| In reply to | #72416 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Bonita Montero writes: >> If know C++, you often don't need to know the exact type, and >> therefore don't need to read the part where the container was >> defined or declared. ... > > Usually not. In your case, definitely. But not in the case of those who have above- average C++ skills and experience.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-20 15:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b196b3d-f376-4bb4-a05c-bfa3d5160403@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #72425 |
On Friday, March 20, 2020 at 6:05:17 PM UTC-4, Sam wrote: > > In your case, definitely. But not in the case of those who have above- > average C++ skills and experience. Bm7 | E7 | He's Trolling G F#m7 And he hopes you like trolling too
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam <sam@email-scan.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-20 23:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cone.1584761010.587835.185377.1004@monster.email-scan.com> |
| In reply to | #72427 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Daniel writes: > On Friday, March 20, 2020 at 6:05:17 PM UTC-4, Sam wrote: > > > > In your case, definitely. But not in the case of those who have above- > > average C++ skills and experience. > > Bm7 | E7 | Some kind of a secret code? > He's Trolling > G F#m7 I misplaced my secret decoder ring, so this won't work for me. > And he hopes you like trolling too Well, all the available evidence suggests that I've been trolling, off and on, since he/she/it was in diapers. The only major difference is that I only troll the trollers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-20 21:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87lfnuqrir.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #72432 |
Sam <sam@email-scan.com> writes:
[...]
> Well, all the available evidence suggests that I've been trolling, off
> and on, since he/she/it was in diapers. The only major difference is
> that I only troll the trollers.
No, when you post on a public newsgroup you troll all of us.
If you feed the troll, you are a troll.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web