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 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | Ralf Goertz <me@myprovider.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-21 08:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r54fg8$hni$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72432 |
Am Fri, 20 Mar 2020 23:23:30 -0400 schrieb Sam <sam@email-scan.com>: > Daniel writes: > > > On Friday, March 20, 2020 at 6:05:17 PM UTC-4, Sam wrote: > > > > > > In your case, definitely. But not in the case of those who have > > > above- average C++ skills and experience. > > > > Bm7 | E7 | > > Some kind of a secret code? > > > He's Trolling > > G F#m7 > > I misplaced my secret decoder ring, so this won't work for me. > > > And he hopes you like trolling too The code is not that secret considering that e.g. Bm7 just means "bd(f#)a" in any order…
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-21 01:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9627c1e9-eb01-45b0-a61f-fdac05868f93@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #72432 |
On Friday, March 20, 2020 at 11:23:42 PM UTC-4, Sam wrote: > Daniel writes: > > > > > Bm7 | E7 | > > Some kind of a secret code? No, chord suggestions > > He's Trolling > G F#m7 > And he hopes you like trolling too > I only troll the trollers. It's not working. Bonita is replying, but staying measured and reasonable. That's not what a troll wants. Daniel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-21 06:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r548pu$q80$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #72425 |
>> Usually not. > In your case, definitely. But not in the case of those who have > above-average C++ skills and experience. It doesn't depend on the skills. You have to know the type of the container which is usually not necessary if there is an explicit definition of the type iterated through.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam <sam@email-scan.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-21 09:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cone.1584798689.721609.194011.1004@monster.email-scan.com> |
| In reply to | #72434 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Bonita Montero writes: >>> Usually not. > >> In your case, definitely. But not in the case of those who have above- >> average C++ skills and experience. > > It doesn't depend on the skills. Yes, it does. > You have to know the type If you have the right skills, you don't need to know the type. That's what separates a real C++ developer from a wanna-be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-22 13:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r57l9k$j7u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72443 |
Le 21/03/2020 à 14:51, Sam a écrit : > Bonita Montero writes: > >>>> Usually not. >> >>> In your case, definitely. But not in the case of those who have >>> above-average C++ skills and experience. >> >> It doesn't depend on the skills. > > Yes, it does. > >> You have to know the type > > If you have the right skills, you don't need to know the type. That's > what separates a real C++ developer from a wanna-be. > > Your tone. That's right, that hideous tone you use. That overflowing self esteem that transpires "You are an idiot, a wanna-be. I am a real expert", that complete lack of elementary manners, that's what makes you so nauseating. But surely you will not understand that. To do that, you would have to know less of C++ and more about manners.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-22 13:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnr7epng.1r7q.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #72466 |
On Sun, 2020-03-22, jacobnavia wrote: > Le 21/03/2020 à 14:51, Sam a écrit : ... >> If you have the right skills, you don't need to know the type. That's >> what separates a real C++ developer from a wanna-be. >> >> > > Your tone. That's right, that hideous tone you use. That overflowing > self esteem that transpires "You are an idiot, a wanna-be. I am a real > expert", that complete lack of elementary manners, that's what makes you > so nauseating. It's just calculated to troll BM. Relax, and use your killfile, like I did. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-22 06:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3bb35305-0862-4e8f-9b3a-47faf6c1c16c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #72466 |
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 8:22:22 AM UTC-4, jacobnavia wrote: > Le 21/03/2020 à 14:51, Sam a écrit : ... > > If you have the right skills, you don't need to know the type. That's > > what separates a real C++ developer from a wanna-be. > > > > > > Your tone. That's right, that hideous tone you use. That overflowing > self esteem that transpires "You are an idiot, a wanna-be. I am a real > expert", that complete lack of elementary manners, that's what makes you > so nauseating. Keep in mind that Bonita has no better manners than Sam. His comment don't imply that he's an expert. He's only claiming to be able to do what she says cannot be done, and that claim implies nothing more than ordinary C++ programming skills.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-22 07:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <91cb0887-a543-46e2-ae37-60050fdfeaff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #72468 |
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 9:32:53 AM UTC-4, James Kuyper wrote: > On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 8:22:22 AM UTC-4, jacobnavia wrote: > > Le 21/03/2020 à 14:51, Sam a écrit : > ... > > > If you have the right skills, you don't need to know the type. That's > > > what separates a real C++ developer from a wanna-be. > > > > > > > > > > Your tone. That's right, that hideous tone you use. That overflowing > > self esteem that transpires "You are an idiot, a wanna-be. I am a real > > expert", that complete lack of elementary manners, that's what makes you > > so nauseating. Yes. > > Keep in mind that Bonita has no better manners than Sam. False on this thread. Bonita's replies to Sam are restrained and respectful and her point is justifiable. > > He's only claiming to be able to do what she says cannot be done, and that > claim implies nothing more than ordinary C++ programming skills. I find this response even more depressing than Sams'. Even Sam concedes he is trolling Bonita. His "claim", to the extent he is making one, is wrong. The point of contention is whether whether auto can always be used safely, and the answer is clearly and demonstrably "no", which is Bonita's point. In particular it can't be used with classes following popular proxy idioms without introducing undefined behavior. If James Kuyper doesn't understand that, he can read, Scott Meyer has written a lot about it, as have others. But this isn't about the correctness of any claim, this is about James Kuyper saying he's perfectly okay with Sam using condescending language including "wanna-be", "limited capacity", "Here are your toys. You can go home now". James Kuyper is going to be the second person that is going into my kill file. Daniel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam <sam@email-scan.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-22 13:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cone.1584896550.895784.37141.1004@monster.email-scan.com> |
| In reply to | #72470 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Daniel writes: > one, is wrong. The point of contention is whether whether auto can always be > used safely, and the answer is clearly and demonstrably "no", which is > Bonita's point. I'm curious as to which features of C++ can "always be used safely", and what exactly does that mean. Can for loops "always be used safely"? Of course not. Easy to get a buffer overrun, by typoing "<=" instead of "<" in a loop condition. The chances of a warning from a typical C++ compiler are nil. So, applying the same standard to "for" as in "auto" we must conclude that the use of "for" loops must be discouraged. After all, they can't "always be used safely". > home now". James Kuyper is going to be the second person that is going into > my kill file. Maybe you should publish your famous kill file on your web site, so that everyone can sit back and applaud how smart you are, and how devoted you are to maintaining the quality of discourse on Usenet. Are you somebody important, by any chance? Important enough so that everyone needs to know who's in your kill file?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-22 17:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9ZMdG.50407$xr2.5145@fx12.am4> |
| In reply to | #72471 |
On 2020-03-22, Sam <sam@email-scan.com> wrote: > This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that > your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages. > The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was published in 1996. > To open this message correctly you will need to install E-mail or Usenet > software that supports modern Internet standards. > > --=_monster.email-scan.com-37141-1584896550-0001 > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset="UTF-8" > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Daniel writes: > >> one, is wrong. The point of contention is whether whether auto can always be >> used safely, and the answer is clearly and demonstrably "no", which is >> Bonita's point. > > I'm curious as to which features of C++ can "always be used safely", and > what exactly does that mean. Can for loops "always be used safely"? Of > course not. Easy to get a buffer overrun, by typoing "<=" instead of "<" in > a loop condition. The chances of a warning from a typical C++ compiler are > nil. > > So, applying the same standard to "for" as in "auto" we must conclude that > the use of "for" loops must be discouraged. After all, they can't "always be > used safely". > >> home now". James Kuyper is going to be the second person that is going into >> my kill file. > > Maybe you should publish your famous kill file on your web site, so that > everyone can sit back and applaud how smart you are, and how devoted you are > to maintaining the quality of discourse on Usenet. > > Are you somebody important, by any chance? Important enough so that everyone > needs to know who's in your kill file? > > > > --=_monster.email-scan.com-37141-1584896550-0001 > Content-Type: application/pgp-signature > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > --=_monster.email-scan.com-37141-1584896550-0001-- James is repectfull to me. Bonita is novice buffon, and offended me several times... I am old programmer. -- 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 | Sam <sam@email-scan.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-22 13:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cone.1584898548.870642.37141.1004@monster.email-scan.com> |
| In reply to | #72472 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Melzzzzz writes: > James is repectfull to me. Bonita is novice buffon, > and offended me several times... > I am old programmer. I am not exactly a spring chicken either. But nobody can offend me without my permission, first. And I do not give anyone permission to offend me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-22 17:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9DNdG.14731$ss3.7424@fx20.am4> |
| In reply to | #72473 |
On 2020-03-22, Sam <sam@email-scan.com> wrote: > > Melzzzzz writes: > >> James is repectfull to me. Bonita is novice buffon, >> and offended me several times... >> I am old programmer. > > I am not exactly a spring chicken either. But nobody can offend me without > my permission, first. And I do not give anyone permission to offend me. Unless someone offends you ;) > > -- press any key to continue or any other to quit... U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec Svi smo svedoci - oko 3 godine intenzivne propagande je dovoljno da jedan narod poludi -- Zli Zec Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam <sam@email-scan.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-22 17:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cone.1584911991.158329.37141.1004@monster.email-scan.com> |
| In reply to | #72474 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Melzzzzz writes: > On 2020-03-22, Sam <sam@email-scan.com> wrote: > > > > Melzzzzz writes: > > > >> James is repectfull to me. Bonita is novice buffon, > >> and offended me several times... > >> I am old programmer. > > > > I am not exactly a spring chicken either. But nobody can offend me without > > my permission, first. And I do not give anyone permission to offend me. > > Unless someone offends you ;) Nope, nobody has my permission to offend me. Now, someone can say, or write, anything they can. I can't stop anyone from writing or saying something to me. But no matter they write, or say, the only possible way they can offend me is that if they get my premission to do that, in advance. And I simply don't give anyone permission to offend me, that's all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-22 21:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <J0RdG.3498$PR.2805@fx30.am4> |
| In reply to | #72482 |
On 2020-03-22, Sam <sam@email-scan.com> wrote: > > Melzzzzz writes: > >> On 2020-03-22, Sam <sam@email-scan.com> wrote: >> > >> > Melzzzzz writes: >> > >> >> James is repectfull to me. Bonita is novice buffon, >> >> and offended me several times... >> >> I am old programmer. >> > >> > I am not exactly a spring chicken either. But nobody can offend me without >> > my permission, first. And I do not give anyone permission to offend me. >> >> Unless someone offends you ;) > > Nope, nobody has my permission to offend me. Now, someone can say, or write, > anything they can. I can't stop anyone from writing or saying something to > me. But no matter they write, or say, the only possible way they can offend > me is that if they get my premission to do that, in advance. > > And I simply don't give anyone permission to offend me, that's all. > In other words, you don't get offended easilly ;) -- 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 | Sam <sam@email-scan.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-22 19:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cone.1584918370.730067.37141.1004@monster.email-scan.com> |
| In reply to | #72484 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Melzzzzz writes: > On 2020-03-22, Sam <sam@email-scan.com> wrote: > > > > Melzzzzz writes: > > > >> On 2020-03-22, Sam <sam@email-scan.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > Melzzzzz writes: > >> > > >> >> James is repectfull to me. Bonita is novice buffon, > >> >> and offended me several times... > >> >> I am old programmer. > >> > > >> > I am not exactly a spring chicken either. But nobody can offend me > without > >> > my permission, first. And I do not give anyone permission to offend me. > >> > >> Unless someone offends you ;) > > > > Nope, nobody has my permission to offend me. Now, someone can say, or > write, > > anything they can. I can't stop anyone from writing or saying something to > > me. But no matter they write, or say, the only possible way they can offend > > me is that if they get my premission to do that, in advance. > > > > And I simply don't give anyone permission to offend me, that's all. > > > In other words, you don't get offended easilly ;) Yes. And I have somewhat of a difficult time comprehending why anyone would get offended at anything someone they don't even know would write on some archaic, dying messaging system that few millenials are even aware of, these days. And the "dying messaging system" isn't really a key ingredient. Even if this was Myspacebook, or Twatter; so someone writes something nasty, oh my. Calls me a poopyhead, or something. Why is some random shlob's ranting would be something I should care about? And be personally offended, no less? And even going beyond that, why would someone need to make a grandiose spectacle of a public announcement of one's righteous condemnation of such civil, uncouth discourse, and then putting the source of it on some kind of a double-secret probation, before one's delicate eyeballs will ever glaze over those horrible, offensible, meany saying from that anonymous wretch, ever again? I don't get it, and never will. I simply choose to avoid this trouble by refusing to give anyone permission to offend me in the first place. Seems like a much easier, simpler solution.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | danielaparker@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-22 17:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a1b59d1-1783-40a8-999e-22b682946431@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #72489 |
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 7:06:23 PM UTC-4, Sam wrote: > > Yes. And I have somewhat of a difficult time comprehending why anyone would > get offended at anything someone they don't even know > If I could be permitted one last post. The language that you and some others use - "wanna-be", "limited capacity", "Here are your toys. You can go home now" - is the language of abuse. It is the language that abusers use, to their children, to their partners, usually to people that they identify as weak, to the bitch that "had it coming", whatever. The heavyweights that were once here - Stroustrup, James Kanze, all of them - never used such language, ever. No moderated technical group ever permits such language because of how destructive to communities it is. > > I don't get it I know. Daniel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam <sam@email-scan.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-22 22:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cone.1584929819.874050.37141.1004@monster.email-scan.com> |
| In reply to | #72492 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
danielaparker@gmail.com writes: > On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 7:06:23 PM UTC-4, Sam wrote: > > > > Yes. And I have somewhat of a difficult time comprehending why anyone would > > get offended at anything someone they don't even know > > > If I could be permitted one last post. > > The language that you and some others use - "wanna-be", "limited capacity", > "Here are your toys. You can go home now" - is the language of abuse. It is > the language that abusers use, to their children, to their partners, usually > to people that they identify as weak, to the bitch that "had it coming", > whatever. The notion that mere spoken or written words are comparable to actual physical abuse to children or spouses is laughable and insulting in of itself. Not to me, but insulting to anyone who actually has to deal with real, human abuse. Go visit a hospital emergency room, and see the faces and bodies of those children or spouses, that look like processed meat when they wheeled in, if you want to see what real abuse looks like. Or a local justice of the peace, when they're working on civil or criminal restraint orders. Now that's real abuse for you. Your attempt to wrap yourself around in a flag of abuse is laughable, and pathetic. Trying to make any kind of a meaningful comparison between some shithead getting called a shithead to their virtual cyber-face, and actual one-on-one physical or even emotional abuse, is laughable, and simply betrays one's self as a coddled snowflake who emerges in the real world and discovers that not everyone places their delicate feelings as their top priority. > The heavyweights that were once here - Stroustrup, James Kanze, all of them - > never used such language, ever. Linus fucking Torvalds sure did. Until he was harassed by the snowflakes into compliance. > No moderated technical group ever permits > such language because of how destructive to communities it is. Only destructive to communities of delicate snowflakes. So all these fragile flowers are freely to go way to all these moderated and curated communities. There are plenty of them around. They'll be more at home there. They don't have to worry about their delicate, pristine, victorian sensibilities getting offended by mean nasty words. > > I don't get it > > I know. Let's see, someone else around here recently had a complaint about someone else constantly misquoting in their replies. Don't recall who it was…
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-25 20:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20200325203800.bf5de681f4150463cdee6d88@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #72492 |
On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 17:11:44 -0700 (PDT) danielaparker@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 7:06:23 PM UTC-4, Sam wrote: > > > > Yes. And I have somewhat of a difficult time comprehending why anyone would > > get offended at anything someone they don't even know > > > If I could be permitted one last post. > > The language that you and some others use - "wanna-be", "limited capacity", > "Here are your toys. You can go home now" - is the language of abuse. It is > the language that abusers use, to their children, to their partners, usually > to people that they identify as weak, to the bitch that "had it coming", > whatever. > > The heavyweights that were once here - Stroustrup, James Kanze, all of them - > never used such language, ever. No moderated technical group ever permits > such language because of how destructive to communities it is. > > > > > I don't get it > > I know. He also isn't quite as secure in himself as he likes to pretend. His "But nobody can offend me without my permission, first. And I do not give anyone permission to offend me" is nothing more than a projection. Bullies don't like it when people hit back. For example, he asserted a year or two ago, when picking on a newcomer's struggles with condition variables, that "It took me only a few minutes to figure it out, the first time I encountered this topic, a long long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. But not everyone is as smart as me... I think we're looking at a future Microsoft Windows developer, here". When told he was a dickhead he didn't like it at all. His reaction to having the facts pointed out to him was quite satisfying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam <sam@email-scan.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-25 20:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cone.1585180871.430748.141935.1004@monster.email-scan.com> |
| In reply to | #72580 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Chris Vine writes: > He also isn't quite as secure in himself as he likes to pretend. His > "But nobody can offend me without my permission, first. And I do not > give anyone permission to offend me" is nothing more than a > projection. Bullies don't like it when people hit back. If you'd like to complete your compilation of my favorite sayings, just let me know and I'll put together a list. > For example, he asserted a year or two ago, when picking on a newcomer's > struggles with condition variables, that "It took me only a few minutes > to figure it out, the first time I encountered this topic, a long long > time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. But not everyone is as smart as > me... I think we're looking at a future Microsoft Windows developer, > here". Well, you got me there, because I can't return the favor: I have absolutely no idea what you said, or wrote, last year. Even last month, come to think of it. Whatever it was, it could not have been memorable enough to have such a profound effect on me that I would still remember it, years later, unlike my proclamations which make such a lasting impact on you, from the looks of it. > When told he was a dickhead he didn't like it at all. His reaction > to having the facts pointed out to him was quite satisfying. Can you refresh my memory as to how exactly you reached your conclusion that I "didn't like it at all"? You are shirley mistaken about it; and for the same exact reasons that I just explained, of course, in painful detail. It is logically impossible for me to have any reaction to being called a dickhead, since this presumes that I would care. A comp.lang.c++ search for "Chris Vine dickhead" finds two posts, the one that you just made, and one from 2017. A search for "Sam dickhead" finds only your, sole, post, from three hours ago. Your other post, from 2017, reads: # And we now also seem to have acquired this Jeff guy who cross-posts # random garbage to this newsgroup in classic troll mode. And we have a # different poster (strangely silent for the last 4 or so weeks) who will # join any argument which he doesn't understand and take it to the point # of absurdity, cannot bear not to have the last word and doesn't mind # projecting himself as a complete dickhead. Was that in referring to me? The fact that I may post occasionally, or in bursts, is nowhere close to being notable. Examining your own posting frequency also finds a fairly similar, in-the-ballpark, posting pattern. Maybe that's because somsone called /you/ a dickhead, perhaps? But, in any case, I'm genuinely curious to find out who called me a dickhead, years ago, an event that must've left a bigger impression on you, than on me, since I can't even remember it. But you do, apparently, so I'm waiting to hear the details.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | danielaparker@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-22 10:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7ae91222-49ab-4c04-9351-3aecd72ad647@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #72472 |
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 1:09:35 PM UTC-4, Melzzzzz wrote: > I am old programmer. > I'm getting old too, too old to relate to the woke generation, too old to understand the nuances of gender distinctions. But the older generations valued courtesy and manners, and the antithesis of that on display here bothers me more than the proselytizers and trolls, and I think it causes more harm to the group. I'm thankful for the help I've received from members over the years, but otherwise feel this is not a good place for me to be, so my last post. Be well, Daniel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web