Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #70446 > unrolled thread
| Started by | woodbrian77@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-12-13 21:28 -0800 |
| Last post | 2019-12-15 09:49 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 309 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
Don't be fooled by cpp.sh woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2019-12-13 21:28 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-14 09:23 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-14 17:19 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-14 09:54 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2019-12-14 12:00 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-14 13:51 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-12-14 22:19 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-14 16:13 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-12-15 15:35 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-12-14 22:17 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-14 16:03 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-12-15 15:41 +1300
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-14 22:55 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-15 09:53 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-12-15 11:18 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-15 16:44 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-12-15 20:49 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-15 15:11 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-12-15 23:28 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-15 15:41 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-12-16 05:18 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-16 10:46 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-16 09:57 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-16 10:21 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-17 09:37 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-12-17 15:13 +0200
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-17 14:12 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-12-17 19:35 +0200
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-18 16:14 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-17 08:32 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-18 16:26 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-12-18 19:11 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-12-18 11:23 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-18 11:31 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-12-18 19:56 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-19 08:42 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-12-19 20:26 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-20 09:25 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-20 04:35 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-20 16:28 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-20 10:36 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-21 16:33 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-21 09:11 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-21 17:22 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-21 10:18 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-21 21:21 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-21 14:30 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-22 21:36 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-22 15:05 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-22 17:03 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.removethisbit.co.uk> - 2019-12-22 17:46 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-22 18:07 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-23 16:23 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.removethisbit.co.uk> - 2019-12-23 16:33 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-23 16:46 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-12-23 18:51 +0200
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-23 17:02 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-12-23 19:17 +0200
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2019-12-24 09:49 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-24 02:16 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-12-25 00:30 +0200
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2019-12-26 09:46 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-12-26 16:38 +0200
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2019-12-26 17:33 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-12-26 19:52 +0200
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2019-12-27 17:14 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-12-27 09:41 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2019-12-28 12:05 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2019-12-28 21:01 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2019-12-29 09:00 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-12-29 12:21 +0200
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2019-12-29 18:30 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-12-29 21:45 +0200
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2019-12-30 10:10 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-12-30 14:03 +0200
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2019-12-30 12:17 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-30 04:39 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2019-12-30 13:01 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-12-30 15:17 +0200
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-30 14:22 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-30 16:49 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-30 17:18 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-30 18:12 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-30 18:16 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-30 18:38 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-30 19:17 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-30 20:55 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-31 03:13 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-31 13:01 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-31 13:13 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-31 14:09 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-31 14:12 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-31 15:39 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-31 15:45 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-12-31 15:22 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-31 17:16 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-31 17:51 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-31 17:59 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-31 18:21 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-31 18:35 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-31 18:51 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-31 18:59 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-31 12:23 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-31 16:14 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-31 16:52 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-12-31 18:58 +0200
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-31 18:00 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-12-31 19:21 +0200
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-31 18:22 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-31 18:46 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-12-31 20:30 +0200
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-31 19:44 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-10 08:10 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-11 13:03 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2020-01-12 07:50 +1300
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-11 11:55 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-11 23:59 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-01 23:04 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-01-04 20:04 -0500
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-05 13:36 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-01-06 18:39 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-31 16:16 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-31 17:01 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2020-01-01 17:34 +0200
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-01 23:09 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-31 03:29 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-30 19:37 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2019-12-31 11:19 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-31 13:14 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-31 16:06 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-30 05:39 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-30 16:39 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2019-12-31 09:25 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-12-31 12:00 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2019-12-31 16:10 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-12-31 16:42 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2020-01-01 09:07 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2020-01-01 15:48 +0200
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2020-01-02 09:24 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2020-01-02 12:02 +0200
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2020-01-02 10:52 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2020-01-02 13:27 +0200
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2020-01-02 16:45 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-01-02 16:55 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2020-01-02 17:24 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-02 18:30 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-03 09:40 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-02 22:58 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-02 22:28 -0500
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-02 22:56 -0500
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-02 22:20 -0500
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2020-01-03 14:53 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-03 17:22 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2020-01-04 12:45 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-03 09:01 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-01-03 10:29 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-03 21:05 -0500
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-10 08:46 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-01-10 09:51 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-10 14:59 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-12-31 19:06 +0200
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-12-31 14:06 +0200
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-31 13:38 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2019-12-31 16:13 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.removethisbit.co.uk> - 2019-12-31 17:06 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2020-01-01 09:09 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-31 18:11 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2020-01-01 09:13 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2020-01-01 09:09 -0600
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2020-01-02 09:25 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2020-01-03 10:09 -0600
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2020-01-04 12:43 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2020-01-04 18:02 -0600
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2020-01-05 10:41 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2020-01-05 12:31 -0600
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-05 20:11 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-05 11:22 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2020-01-05 21:07 -0600
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-01-05 20:40 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2020-01-06 18:08 -0600
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-06 23:17 -0500
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-07 08:37 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-10 14:51 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-07 08:28 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-10 14:19 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-01 23:15 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2020-01-02 09:33 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-02 12:16 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2019-12-31 18:14 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-31 19:16 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2019-12-31 18:48 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-12-31 12:29 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2020-01-01 09:17 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-30 16:32 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2019-12-30 14:57 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2019-12-31 09:23 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-12-30 22:16 -0500
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2019-12-30 20:30 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-10 21:12 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2019-12-30 20:07 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-30 13:50 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2020-01-01 08:11 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2020-01-02 09:28 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-10 21:26 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2019-12-29 11:31 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2019-12-29 18:35 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.removethisbit.co.uk> - 2019-12-29 18:40 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2019-12-30 10:12 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-30 14:10 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-12-29 12:11 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-12-29 22:20 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-30 01:23 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2019-12-30 15:54 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.removethisbit.co.uk> - 2019-12-30 17:07 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2019-12-30 19:58 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2019-12-30 23:59 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-12-30 21:23 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-12-28 18:09 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.removethisbit.co.uk> - 2019-12-26 18:30 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2019-12-27 17:17 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-27 09:58 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2019-12-28 12:06 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-28 08:39 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.org - 2019-12-28 16:57 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2020-01-02 23:18 -0500
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2019-12-26 10:54 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-12-26 22:50 +0200
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-12-26 10:38 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2019-12-24 17:52 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-24 23:53 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2019-12-25 08:51 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-25 10:54 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2019-12-21 08:42 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-21 09:25 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-18 11:28 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-12-18 20:00 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-12-18 22:12 +0200
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-19 08:47 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-30 14:03 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-12-18 09:47 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-18 11:49 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-12-18 12:05 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-18 12:19 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-12-16 21:13 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-17 09:38 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-12-17 09:14 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-12-17 17:50 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-16 09:35 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-12-15 20:48 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-16 09:55 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-12-15 11:12 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-12-15 06:53 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-15 16:48 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-12-15 09:10 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-15 18:33 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-12-15 19:29 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-12-15 23:38 -0500
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-15 21:23 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-12-15 21:36 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-15 21:43 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-16 09:44 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-12-16 12:10 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-16 16:21 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-12-16 10:54 -0600
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2019-12-16 10:47 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-16 11:19 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-16 21:15 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2019-12-16 22:23 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-17 09:31 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-12-16 23:23 -0600
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-16 21:45 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-12-16 23:20 -0600
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-17 21:56 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-16 22:06 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-16 19:42 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-12-16 11:56 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-16 21:18 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-12-16 21:03 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-17 00:04 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-12-17 01:06 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-17 14:51 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-12-16 07:25 -0500
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2019-12-16 14:13 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-16 16:32 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2019-12-16 10:52 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-16 21:24 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-16 10:56 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-12-16 20:45 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-16 22:00 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-12-17 04:07 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-17 15:00 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-12-17 14:44 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-17 15:54 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-12-17 15:52 +0000
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2019-12-17 11:51 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-17 22:10 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2019-12-17 22:08 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-18 08:56 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-10 08:29 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-12-17 23:55 -0500
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-12-18 09:36 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2019-12-16 22:29 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-12-16 22:40 -0500
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-12-16 07:17 -0500
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-12-15 21:24 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2019-12-16 12:13 +0100
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-12-16 07:44 -0500
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-12-16 18:53 -0800
Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-15 09:49 +0000
Page 2 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 16 Next page →
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-16 05:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <MsEJF.12225$Eh6.5349@fx01.am4> |
| In reply to | #70487 |
On 2019-12-15, Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote: > On Monday, 16 December 2019 01:28:14 UTC+2, Melzzzzz wrote: >> On 2019-12-15, Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 12/15/2019 12:49 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> >> On 2019-12-15, boltar@nowhere.co.uk <boltar@nowhere.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 11:18:43 GMT >> >>> Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> wrote: >> >>>> On 2019-12-15, boltar@nowhere.co.uk <boltar@nowhere.co.uk> wrote: >> > [...] >> >>>> I use C only when necessary. When I have to. syntactic sugar of C++ is >> >>>> what makes me use it. And I hate macros. >> >>> >> >>> If you do cross platform systems or network programming you have no choice but >> >>> to use macros even in C++17. >> >> >> >> I can use macros but I don't write them... >> > >> > Have you ever experienced the Boost preprocessor macros? Iirc, it was >> > the Chaos lib way back. Some hardcore shi%. >> > >> > ;^) >> >> Heh, I never used boost as well :P > > Last 15 years it has been almost inevitable to use something from boost > in bigger project. Other way is to write precisely same thing yourself. > Did you have myFilesystem, myOptional and myVariant before C++17? Yes. -- press any key to continue or any other to quit... U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec Svi smo svedoci - oko 3 godine intenzivne propagande je dovoljno da jedan narod poludi -- Zli Zec Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-16 10:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <788e95de-9e03-489d-b994-2325ffb88577@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #70490 |
On Monday, 16 December 2019 07:18:47 UTC+2, Melzzzzz wrote: > On 2019-12-15, Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote: > > On Monday, 16 December 2019 01:28:14 UTC+2, Melzzzzz wrote: > >> On 2019-12-15, Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On 12/15/2019 12:49 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > >> >> On 2019-12-15, boltar@nowhere.co.uk <boltar@nowhere.co.uk> wrote: > >> >>> On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 11:18:43 GMT > >> >>> Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> wrote: > >> >>>> On 2019-12-15, boltar@nowhere.co.uk <boltar@nowhere.co.uk> wrote: > >> > [...] > >> >>>> I use C only when necessary. When I have to. syntactic sugar of C++ is > >> >>>> what makes me use it. And I hate macros. > >> >>> > >> >>> If you do cross platform systems or network programming you have no choice but > >> >>> to use macros even in C++17. > >> >> > >> >> I can use macros but I don't write them... > >> > > >> > Have you ever experienced the Boost preprocessor macros? Iirc, it was > >> > the Chaos lib way back. Some hardcore shi%. > >> > > >> > ;^) > >> > >> Heh, I never used boost as well :P > > > > Last 15 years it has been almost inevitable to use something from boost > > in bigger project. Other way is to write precisely same thing yourself. > > Did you have myFilesystem, myOptional and myVariant before C++17? > > Yes. Variant and filesystem felt too boring and complicated to write myself so I always either used some platform-specific or portable library (like Qt, or boost) solutions. Some "optional" or "fallible" is simpler to write but why to bother when there is boost already?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@nowhere.co.uk |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-16 09:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qt7ke7$2fs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #70487 |
On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 15:41:18 -0800 (PST) =?UTF-8?B?w5bDtiBUaWli?= <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote: >On Monday, 16 December 2019 01:28:14 UTC+2, Melzzzzz wrote: >> On 2019-12-15, Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 12/15/2019 12:49 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> >> On 2019-12-15, boltar@nowhere.co.uk <boltar@nowhere.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 11:18:43 GMT >> >>> Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> wrote: >> >>>> On 2019-12-15, boltar@nowhere.co.uk <boltar@nowhere.co.uk> wrote: >> > [...] >> >>>> I use C only when necessary. When I have to. syntactic sugar of C++ is >> >>>> what makes me use it. And I hate macros. >> >>> >> >>> If you do cross platform systems or network programming you have no >choice but >> >>> to use macros even in C++17. >> >> >> >> I can use macros but I don't write them... >> > >> > Have you ever experienced the Boost preprocessor macros? Iirc, it was >> > the Chaos lib way back. Some hardcore shi%. >> > >> > ;^) >> >> Heh, I never used boost as well :P > >Last 15 years it has been almost inevitable to use something from boost >in bigger project. Other way is to write precisely same thing yourself. >Did you have myFilesystem, myOptional and myVariant before C++17? Optional and variant are both solutions looking for a problem. Just more noise added to the language to keep a tiny number of purists happy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-16 10:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9bbc3365-c79f-4b9b-a478-e657118750e2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #70498 |
On Monday, 16 December 2019 11:57:36 UTC+2, bol...@nowhere.co.uk wrote: > On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 15:41:18 -0800 (PST) > =?UTF-8?B?w5bDtiBUaWli?= <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote: > >On Monday, 16 December 2019 01:28:14 UTC+2, Melzzzzz wrote: > >> On 2019-12-15, Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On 12/15/2019 12:49 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > >> >> On 2019-12-15, boltar@nowhere.co.uk <boltar@nowhere.co.uk> wrote: > >> >>> On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 11:18:43 GMT > >> >>> Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> wrote: > >> >>>> On 2019-12-15, boltar@nowhere.co.uk <boltar@nowhere.co.uk> wrote: > >> > [...] > >> >>>> I use C only when necessary. When I have to. syntactic sugar of C++ is > >> >>>> what makes me use it. And I hate macros. > >> >>> > >> >>> If you do cross platform systems or network programming you have no > >choice but > >> >>> to use macros even in C++17. > >> >> > >> >> I can use macros but I don't write them... > >> > > >> > Have you ever experienced the Boost preprocessor macros? Iirc, it was > >> > the Chaos lib way back. Some hardcore shi%. > >> > > >> > ;^) > >> > >> Heh, I never used boost as well :P > > > >Last 15 years it has been almost inevitable to use something from boost > >in bigger project. Other way is to write precisely same thing yourself. > >Did you have myFilesystem, myOptional and myVariant before C++17? > > Optional and variant are both solutions looking for a problem. Just more noise > added to the language to keep a tiny number of purists happy. Nonsense. The problems are usual. Performance and reliability. Union is rather good performance optimization in decent hands, variant is a easy to use reliable union, and optional is a variant between value and nothing. So "purist" who can wield such trivial tools typically wins such a sorry "latitudinarians" who can't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@nowhere.co.uk |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-17 09:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qta7l0$7qa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #70509 |
On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 10:21:20 -0800 (PST) =?UTF-8?B?w5bDtiBUaWli?= <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote: >On Monday, 16 December 2019 11:57:36 UTC+2, bol...@nowhere.co.uk wrote: >> On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 15:41:18 -0800 (PST) >> =?UTF-8?B?w5bDtiBUaWli?= <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote: >> >On Monday, 16 December 2019 01:28:14 UTC+2, Melzzzzz wrote: >> >> On 2019-12-15, Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On 12/15/2019 12:49 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> >> >> On 2019-12-15, boltar@nowhere.co.uk <boltar@nowhere.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >>> On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 11:18:43 GMT >> >> >>> Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> wrote: >> >> >>>> On 2019-12-15, boltar@nowhere.co.uk <boltar@nowhere.co.uk> wrote: >> >> > [...] >> >> >>>> I use C only when necessary. When I have to. syntactic sugar of C++ >is >> >> >>>> what makes me use it. And I hate macros. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> If you do cross platform systems or network programming you have no >> >choice but >> >> >>> to use macros even in C++17. >> >> >> >> >> >> I can use macros but I don't write them... >> >> > >> >> > Have you ever experienced the Boost preprocessor macros? Iirc, it was >> >> > the Chaos lib way back. Some hardcore shi%. >> >> > >> >> > ;^) >> >> >> >> Heh, I never used boost as well :P >> > >> >Last 15 years it has been almost inevitable to use something from boost >> >in bigger project. Other way is to write precisely same thing yourself. >> >Did you have myFilesystem, myOptional and myVariant before C++17? >> >> Optional and variant are both solutions looking for a problem. Just more >noise >> added to the language to keep a tiny number of purists happy. > >Nonsense. The problems are usual. Performance and reliability. Union is Rubbish. Optional is just a lazy inefficient way of checking valid return object values. Any decently designed class thats going to have many instances thrown around should have a valid flag or some other marker showing whether it can be used so optional not required. And if you're dealing with pointers just return NULL. >rather good performance optimization in decent hands, variant is a easy >to use reliable union, and optional is a variant between value and Non POD types should never be unioned unless memory space is so critical that there is no other option. In which case why are you using C++ in the first place? And a standard union is fine for PODs and in all sane use cases for a union you HAVE to know what types you're dealing with as you're probably dealing with very low level operations so leaving it to the compiler makes no sense. >nothing. So "purist" who can wield such trivial tools typically >wins such a sorry "latitudinarians" who can't. Uh huh.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-17 15:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qtak9b$cm1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70537 |
On 17.12.2019 11:37, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote: > > Non POD types should never be unioned unless memory space is so critical that > there is no other option. What? Trying to start another Luddite upraise or something? > In which case why are you using C++ in the first > place? To have non-POD types, obviously! And for speed, of course. > And a standard union is fine for PODs and in all sane use cases for > a union you HAVE to know what types you're dealing with as you're probably > dealing with very low level operations so leaving it to the compiler makes > no sense. Of course I have to know which type is active in an union. This is not specific to POD or non-POD. And one can still use a simple integer discriminator tag and switch() on it at will, no need to use heavy templating a la std::variant if it does not suit the task.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@nowhere.co.uk |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-17 14:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qtanoa$n7a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #70539 |
On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 15:13:14 +0200 Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> wrote: >On 17.12.2019 11:37, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote: >> >> Non POD types should never be unioned unless memory space is so critical that > >> there is no other option. > >What? Trying to start another Luddite upraise or something? > >> In which case why are you using C++ in the first >> place? > >To have non-POD types, obviously! And for speed, of course. You've never done any embedded development have you. No, thats not a question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-17 19:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qtb3k6$cs1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70542 |
On 17.12.2019 16:12, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote: > On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 15:13:14 +0200 > Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> wrote: >> On 17.12.2019 11:37, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote: >>> >>> Non POD types should never be unioned unless memory space is so critical that >> >>> there is no other option. >> >> What? Trying to start another Luddite upraise or something? >> >>> In which case why are you using C++ in the first >>> place? >> >> To have non-POD types, obviously! And for speed, of course. > > You've never done any embedded development have you. Ah, trying to change the topic and ad hominem in a single line. Well done!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@nowhere.co.uk |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-18 16:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qtdj9v$2ot$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #70547 |
On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 19:35:00 +0200 Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> wrote: >On 17.12.2019 16:12, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote: >> On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 15:13:14 +0200 >> Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> wrote: >>> On 17.12.2019 11:37, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote: >>>> >>>> Non POD types should never be unioned unless memory space is so critical >that >>> >>>> there is no other option. >>> >>> What? Trying to start another Luddite upraise or something? >>> >>>> In which case why are you using C++ in the first >>>> place? >>> >>> To have non-POD types, obviously! And for speed, of course. >> >> You've never done any embedded development have you. > >Ah, trying to change the topic and ad hominem in a single line. Well done! I suggest you go look up what ad hominem means. It doesn't mean stating a fact you don't happen to like.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-17 08:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8acd5af5-c9bb-40e2-8bbf-c019e3461b77@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #70537 |
On Tuesday, 17 December 2019 11:37:49 UTC+2, bol...@nowhere.co.uk wrote: > On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 10:21:20 -0800 (PST) > =?UTF-8?B?w5bDtiBUaWli?= <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote: > >On Monday, 16 December 2019 11:57:36 UTC+2, bol...@nowhere.co.uk wrote: > >> On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 15:41:18 -0800 (PST) > >> =?UTF-8?B?w5bDtiBUaWli?= <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote: > >> >On Monday, 16 December 2019 01:28:14 UTC+2, Melzzzzz wrote: > >> >> On 2019-12-15, Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > On 12/15/2019 12:49 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > >> >> >> On 2019-12-15, boltar@nowhere.co.uk <boltar@nowhere.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> >>> On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 11:18:43 GMT > >> >> >>> Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>> On 2019-12-15, boltar@nowhere.co.uk <boltar@nowhere.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> > [...] > >> >> >>>> I use C only when necessary. When I have to. syntactic sugar of C++ > >is > >> >> >>>> what makes me use it. And I hate macros. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> If you do cross platform systems or network programming you have no > >> >choice but > >> >> >>> to use macros even in C++17. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I can use macros but I don't write them... > >> >> > > >> >> > Have you ever experienced the Boost preprocessor macros? Iirc, it was > >> >> > the Chaos lib way back. Some hardcore shi%. > >> >> > > >> >> > ;^) > >> >> > >> >> Heh, I never used boost as well :P > >> > > >> >Last 15 years it has been almost inevitable to use something from boost > >> >in bigger project. Other way is to write precisely same thing yourself. > >> >Did you have myFilesystem, myOptional and myVariant before C++17? > >> > >> Optional and variant are both solutions looking for a problem. Just more > >noise > >> added to the language to keep a tiny number of purists happy. > > > >Nonsense. The problems are usual. Performance and reliability. Union is > > Rubbish. Optional is just a lazy inefficient way of checking valid return > object values. Any decently designed class thats going to have many instances > thrown around should have a valid flag or some other marker showing whether it > can be used so optional not required. "Invalid"/"Incomplete"/"Half-received"/"Erred" states of objects are the common source of errors. You are rare fan of iostreams failbit-badbit garbage it seems? > And if you're dealing with pointers just > return NULL. Per-object dynamic memory management is common source of inefficiency. > >rather good performance optimization in decent hands, variant is a easy > >to use reliable union, and optional is a variant between value and > > Non POD types should never be unioned unless memory space is so critical that > there is no other option. In which case why are you using C++ in the first > place? Because C++ is often more efficient than alternatives and can union non-pod types in variant. If C++ can't do it then there are no chance to do better job with your Perl ... or what you program there. > And a standard union is fine for PODs and in all sane use cases for > a union you HAVE to know what types you're dealing with as you're probably > dealing with very low level operations so leaving it to the compiler makes > no sense. PODs are useful only for dealing with those low level operations. Most embedded controllers have tens of kilobytes of RAM (since it just costs nothing) and so are often expected to be quite smart these days. > >nothing. So "purist" who can wield such trivial tools typically > >wins such a sorry "latitudinarians" who can't. > > Uh huh.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@nowhere.co.uk |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-18 16:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qtdk01$67b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #70546 |
On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 08:32:21 -0800 (PST) =?UTF-8?B?w5bDtiBUaWli?= <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote: >On Tuesday, 17 December 2019 11:37:49 UTC+2, bol...@nowhere.co.uk wrote: >> Rubbish. Optional is just a lazy inefficient way of checking valid return >> object values. Any decently designed class thats going to have many instances > >> thrown around should have a valid flag or some other marker showing whether >it >> can be used so optional not required. > >"Invalid"/"Incomplete"/"Half-received"/"Erred" states of objects are the common > >source of errors. You are rare fan of iostreams failbit-badbit garbage it >seems? I never use iostreams unless I have no choice. They're just bloat inbetween my code and the OS I/O system. My point is any class likely to be flung around a program as instances usually has some kind of flag designating whether an instance is valid. Personally however I prefer pointers. >> And if you're dealing with pointers just >> return NULL. > >Per-object dynamic memory management is common source of inefficiency. And you think creating an instance of optional for a function return just to signify a valid return value and then having to call a method to get the actual contained instance is efficient? >> Non POD types should never be unioned unless memory space is so critical >that >> there is no other option. In which case why are you using C++ in the first >> place? > >Because C++ is often more efficient than alternatives and can union non-pod >types in variant. If C++ can't do it then there are no chance to do better job >with your Perl ... or what you program there. I don't use Perl. >> And a standard union is fine for PODs and in all sane use cases for >> a union you HAVE to know what types you're dealing with as you're probably >> dealing with very low level operations so leaving it to the compiler makes >> no sense. > >PODs are useful only for dealing with those low level operations. Most >embedded controllers have tens of kilobytes of RAM (since it just costs >nothing) and so are often expected to be quite smart these days. No all of them. Some PICs have < 1K of RAM. Anyway, when someone shows me a sane use case of unionising non POD types perhaps I'll see variant as something other than just more noise in the C++ spec.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-18 19:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <NRuKF.25992$5I8.17198@fx04.dcg> |
| In reply to | #70557 |
On 18/12/2019 16:26, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote: > On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 08:32:21 -0800 (PST) > =?UTF-8?B?w5bDtiBUaWli?= <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote: >> On Tuesday, 17 December 2019 11:37:49 UTC+2, bol...@nowhere.co.uk wrote: >>> Rubbish. Optional is just a lazy inefficient way of checking valid return >>> object values. Any decently designed class thats going to have many instances >> >>> thrown around should have a valid flag or some other marker showing whether >> it >>> can be used so optional not required. >> >> "Invalid"/"Incomplete"/"Half-received"/"Erred" states of objects are the common >> >> source of errors. You are rare fan of iostreams failbit-badbit garbage it >> seems? > > I never use iostreams unless I have no choice. They're just bloat inbetween > my code and the OS I/O system. > > My point is any class likely to be flung around a program as instances usually > has some kind of flag designating whether an instance is valid. Personally > however I prefer pointers. > >>> And if you're dealing with pointers just >>> return NULL. >> >> Per-object dynamic memory management is common source of inefficiency. > > And you think creating an instance of optional for a function return just to > signify a valid return value and then having to call a method to get the actual > contained instance is efficient? How thick are you? That isn't using optionals properly; you really are clueless. /Flibble -- "Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin “You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais “I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Byrne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-18 11:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <88ed9f25-8b09-435e-88d9-02d46b62a57d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #70561 |
On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 2:12:03 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: > On 18/12/2019 16:26, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote: > > > > And you think creating an instance of optional for a function return just >> to signify a valid return value and then having to call a method to get the >> actual contained instance is efficient? > > That isn't using optionals properly > You wouldn't use optional for a function return? Daniel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-18 11:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <caa4f87b-a968-47da-b458-664cd3bd0d7f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #70562 |
On Wednesday, 18 December 2019 21:23:49 UTC+2, Daniel wrote: > On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 2:12:03 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: > > On 18/12/2019 16:26, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote: > > > > > > And you think creating an instance of optional for a function return just >> to signify a valid return value and then having to call a method to get the >> actual contained instance is efficient? > > > > That isn't using optionals properly > > > You wouldn't use optional for a function return? Only when it is normal that it is missing and then stored as optional.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-18 19:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvvKF.115$ZO7.16@fx20.dcg> |
| In reply to | #70562 |
On 18/12/2019 19:23, Daniel wrote: > On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 2:12:03 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On 18/12/2019 16:26, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote: >>> >>> And you think creating an instance of optional for a function return just >> to signify a valid return value and then having to call a method to get the >> actual contained instance is efficient? >> >> That isn't using optionals properly >> > You wouldn't use optional for a function return? Ah, I misread what "boltar" said; obviously using them for function return is fine and calling a method to get the contained value is not an issue like "boltar" suggests. /Flibble -- "Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin “You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais “I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Byrne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@nowhere.co.uk |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-19 08:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qtfd6f$coi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #70566 |
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 19:56:04 +0000 Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> wrote: >On 18/12/2019 19:23, Daniel wrote: >> On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 2:12:03 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On 18/12/2019 16:26, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote: >>>> >>>> And you think creating an instance of optional for a function return just >>> to signify a valid return value and then having to call a method to get the >>> actual contained instance is efficient? >>> >>> That isn't using optionals properly >>> >> You wouldn't use optional for a function return? > >Ah, I misread what "boltar" said; obviously using them for function return is >fine and calling a method to get the contained value is not an issue like >"boltar" suggests. I never said it was an issue, I said it was pointless and inefficient.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-19 20:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j2RKF.2132$yK.1232@fx11.dcg> |
| In reply to | #70580 |
On 19/12/2019 08:42, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote: > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 19:56:04 +0000 > Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> wrote: >> On 18/12/2019 19:23, Daniel wrote: >>> On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 2:12:03 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> On 18/12/2019 16:26, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote: >>>>> >>>>> And you think creating an instance of optional for a function return just >>>> to signify a valid return value and then having to call a method to get the >>>> actual contained instance is efficient? >>>> >>>> That isn't using optionals properly >>>> >>> You wouldn't use optional for a function return? >> >> Ah, I misread what "boltar" said; obviously using them for function return is >> fine and calling a method to get the contained value is not an issue like >> "boltar" suggests. > > I never said it was an issue, I said it was pointless and inefficient. "pointless" : subjective! "inefficient: compared to what? /Flibble -- "Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin “You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais “I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Byrne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@nowhere.co.uk |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-20 09:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qti42l$viq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #70587 |
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 20:26:55 +0000 Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> wrote: >On 19/12/2019 08:42, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 19:56:04 +0000 >> Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> wrote: >>> On 18/12/2019 19:23, Daniel wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 2:12:03 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On 18/12/2019 16:26, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> And you think creating an instance of optional for a function return just > >>>>> to signify a valid return value and then having to call a method to get >the >>>>> actual contained instance is efficient? >>>>> >>>>> That isn't using optionals properly >>>>> >>>> You wouldn't use optional for a function return? >>> >>> Ah, I misread what "boltar" said; obviously using them for function return >is >>> fine and calling a method to get the contained value is not an issue like >>> "boltar" suggests. >> >> I never said it was an issue, I said it was pointless and inefficient. > >"pointless" : subjective! If something adds nothing except complexity its pointless. >"inefficient: compared to what? Compared to not using it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-20 04:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <afcb65a5-2e07-4625-9ad4-712905be045d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #70588 |
On Friday, 20 December 2019 11:25:53 UTC+2, bol...@nowhere.co.uk wrote: > On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 20:26:55 +0000 > Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> wrote: > >On 19/12/2019 08:42, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote: > >> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 19:56:04 +0000 > >> Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> wrote: > >>> On 18/12/2019 19:23, Daniel wrote: > >>>> On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 2:12:03 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>>>> On 18/12/2019 16:26, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And you think creating an instance of optional for a function return just > > > >>>>> to signify a valid return value and then having to call a method to get > >the > >>>>> actual contained instance is efficient? > >>>>> > >>>>> That isn't using optionals properly > >>>>> > >>>> You wouldn't use optional for a function return? > >>> > >>> Ah, I misread what "boltar" said; obviously using them for function return > >is > >>> fine and calling a method to get the contained value is not an issue like > >>> "boltar" suggests. > >> > >> I never said it was an issue, I said it was pointless and inefficient. > > > >"pointless" : subjective! > > If something adds nothing except complexity its pointless. > > >"inefficient: compared to what? > > Compared to not using it. But how you "do not use" it?: 1) data in your program can not have optional, missing, lazily loaded properties. That is uselessly naive to hope about most real world data. Even if all data is really acquirable it may be expensive and pointless to do it always. 2) properties whose value may be missing has to be dynamically allocated so you can use nullptr as indication of it being missing. Really? Every int that may be unknown has to be made dynamically allocated? 3) such objects have to have internal "missing" state that is then checked in all interface methods of those. Types outside of your control like fundamentals or standard library types you need to manually wrap by add that "missing" state. Whole whopping wrapper class around int to add missing state to it? 4) You have external bools or flags somewhere that indicate if something is missing? Annoyingly error prone and confusing. 5) You use certain "magical" values of your objects to encode that it is missing? So LONG_MIN means long is missing and INT_MIN that int is missing and so on? How to make difference between missing and known to be empty sd::vector? Again annoyingly error-prone approach. 6) You use some kind of mix of above "tricks"? That tends to clearly make it even worse, more confusing and likely less efficient. Your own code is like bear trap against yourself and your teammates. Any other ways? I doubt it. Lot cheaper and cleaner is to use missing state of types that already naturally have it (like pointers and floating points) and for anything else that may be unknown or missing to use std::optional.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@nowhere.co.uk |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-20 16:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qtisr1$o7s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #70589 |
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 04:35:37 -0800 (PST) =?UTF-8?B?w5bDtiBUaWli?= <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote: >On Friday, 20 December 2019 11:25:53 UTC+2, bol...@nowhere.co.uk wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 20:26:55 +0000 >> Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> wrote: >> >On 19/12/2019 08:42, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote: >> >> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 19:56:04 +0000 >> >> Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 18/12/2019 19:23, Daniel wrote: >> >>>> On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 2:12:03 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: >> >>>>> On 18/12/2019 16:26, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> And you think creating an instance of optional for a function return >just >> > >> >>>>> to signify a valid return value and then having to call a method to get > >> >the >> >>>>> actual contained instance is efficient? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> That isn't using optionals properly >> >>>>> >> >>>> You wouldn't use optional for a function return? >> >>> >> >>> Ah, I misread what "boltar" said; obviously using them for function >return >> >is >> >>> fine and calling a method to get the contained value is not an issue like > >> >>> "boltar" suggests. >> >> >> >> I never said it was an issue, I said it was pointless and inefficient. >> > >> >"pointless" : subjective! >> >> If something adds nothing except complexity its pointless. >> >> >"inefficient: compared to what? >> >> Compared to not using it. > >But how you "do not use" it?: How did you manage to write code before? Its just yet more noise. >5) You use certain "magical" values of your objects to encode >that it is missing? >So LONG_MIN means long is missing and INT_MIN that int is >missing and so on? How to make difference between missing >and known to be empty sd::vector? Again annoyingly error-prone >approach. Or you could throw an exception if there's an error and you don't want to return that as a special value or instance flag. Or pass in an error parameter. >That tends to clearly make it even worse, more confusing and >likely less efficient. Your own code is like bear trap against >yourself and your teammates. How did we manage before 2017. Its a mystery. >Lot cheaper and cleaner is to use missing state of types that >already naturally have it (like pointers and floating points) >and for anything else that may be unknown or missing to use >std::optional. Yeah, lets just create pointless object instances all over the place just to indicate valid returns. Very efficient. I think you'd like Java.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web