Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #47578 > unrolled thread

My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ).

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-12-23 17:06 -0800
    Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-12-24 11:00 +0200
      Re: while() and "Loop(3) { _Loop(4)..." aren't "impenetrable". Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-12-26 23:17 +0200
        Re: Refactoring is good, God's speed. Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-12-27 01:17 +0200
          Re: Refactoring is good, God's speed. "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-26 15:26 -0800
          Re: PHP could use #define, seriously. Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-12-27 10:01 +0200
          Re: Refactoring is good, God's speed. legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2016-12-28 18:10 +0000
            Re: Refactoring is good, God's speed. woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-28 10:20 -0800
        Re: Refactoring is good, God's speed. interval1066@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 10:43 -0800
          Re: Refactoring is good, God's speed. legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2017-01-02 00:44 +0000
            #define came from God himself, it's sacred. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-01 23:51 -0800
              #define came from God himself, it's sacred. Jeff-Relf.Me <@..yep> - 2017-01-02 08:00 +0000
                Re: #define came from God himself, it's sacred. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-03 03:58 +0000
                  I completely reWrote it, of course. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-03 00:46 -0800
                    I completely reWrote it, of course. Jeff-Relf.Me <@..sour> - 2017-01-03 08:51 +0000
                    Re: I completely reWrote it, of course. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-01-03 12:13 +0100
                      Re: I completely reWrote it, of course. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2017-01-03 12:28 +0100
                      Re: I completely reWrote it, of course. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-03 07:32 -0600
                        Ezekiel lives in your head RENT FREE!!  LOL!!! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2017-01-03 12:16 -0700
                        With "warnings as errors", turn off these warnings. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-03 13:00 -0800
                      Re: I completely reWrote it, of course. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2017-01-03 12:16 -0700
                        Re: I completely reWrote it, of course. red floyd <dont.bother@its.invalid> - 2017-01-03 12:30 -0800
                          If you're retarded then, yes, _Loop() is "undefined". Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-16 11:06 -0800
                        Re: I completely reWrote it, of course. scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-01-04 13:33 +0000
                          Re: I completely reWrote it, of course. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-04 07:45 -0600
                            Re: I completely reWrote it, of course. scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-01-04 14:54 +0000
                              The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-04 10:17 -0800
                                Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-01-04 19:19 +0100
                                Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-05 03:34 +0000
                                  The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-04 22:26 -0800
                                    Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). Anonymous <anonymous@invalid.tld> - 2017-01-05 08:18 +0000
                                      Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-01-05 09:24 +0100
                                      PostScript is my thing. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-05 01:08 -0800
                                    My diffs now _perfectly match MicroSoft's WinMerge. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-07 03:56 -0800
                                      Re: My diffs now _perfectly match MicroSoft's WinMerge. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-01-07 13:09 +0100
                                      Re: My diffs now _perfectly match MicroSoft's WinMerge. jonkalb <google@kalbweb.com> - 2017-01-07 08:32 -0800
                                      Re: My diffs now _perfectly match MicroSoft's WinMerge. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-07 20:25 +0000
                                        Like a compiler that compiles itself, my Diff app diffs itself. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-07 17:53 -0800
                                        Re: My diffs now _perfectly match MicroSoft's WinMerge. Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2017-01-10 22:15 +0100
                                          Text file comparison is essential. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-16 11:23 -0800
                                            Nothing to compare, left and right, old and new. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-19 04:12 -0800
                                Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-01-05 14:08 +0000
                                Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-05 21:09 +0000
                                  Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2017-01-05 21:19 +0000
                                    "Functional" programming is "Tree Crawling". Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-05 14:53 -0800
                                Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 17:43 -0600
                                  Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2017-01-10 12:02 -0800
                                    Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 20:13 +0000
                                    Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-01-10 20:34 +0000
                                    Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-10 21:21 +0000
                                      Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-10 22:48 +0100
                                        Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-12 21:40 +0000
                                    Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). red floyd <dont.bother@its.invalid> - 2017-01-10 13:46 -0800
                                    Re: The Longest Common Sequence ( NonContiguous ) algorithm ( recursive ). Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-11 17:41 +1300
                              Re: I completely reWrote it, of course. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-01-05 14:08 +0000
                        What about you, GreyCloud ? Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-16 11:02 -0800
                          Re: What about you, GreyCloud ? GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2017-01-16 19:46 -0700
                            Health issues ? Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-16 20:39 -0800
                              Re: Health issues ? GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2017-01-17 11:50 -0700
                                Negative Interest Rates. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-19 04:25 -0800
                                  Re: Negative Interest Rates. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2017-01-19 11:47 -0700
                                    Negative Interest Rates "rips off" rich people, not the poor. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-19 19:23 -0800
                                      Re: Negative Interest Rates "rips off" rich people, not the poor. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2017-01-20 16:17 -0700
                          Tons of people have reviewed the code, source and object. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-19 04:02 -0800
                          Building a complex system can't be done when you're drunk and horny. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-19 04:17 -0800
                            Re: Building a complex system can't be done when you're drunk and horny. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-19 13:59 +0100
                              No one is here to learn at your feet, sorry. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-19 05:30 -0800
                              Re: Building a complex system can't be done when you're drunk and horny. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-19 07:37 -0600
                                Building a complex system can't be done when you're drunk and horny. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-19 05:43 -0800
                              Re: Building a complex system can't be done when you're drunk and horny. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-20 04:32 +0000
                                Usenet isn't WikiPedia; here, it's all play and no work, anything goes. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-19 21:02 -0800
                    The "Least Longest" diffs. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-03 03:04 -0800
                  Re: #define came from God himself, it's sacred. Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-03 21:27 +0000
        Re: LoopP( !isDigit( Ch ) ); jonkalb <google@kalbweb.com> - 2017-01-16 22:05 -0800
          Re: LoopP( !isDigit( Ch ) ); woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2017-01-17 11:17 -0800
            Re: LoopP( !isDigit( Ch ) ); David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-17 22:20 +0100
          Re: LoopP( !isDigit( Ch ) ); Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-17 18:18 -0300
            Re: LoopP( !isDigit( Ch ) ); Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-17 21:51 +0000
      Re: while() and "Loop(3) { _Loop(4)..." aren't "impenetrable". Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-12-26 13:24 -0800
        Re: "Standards" are like assholes, everyone's got one. Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-12-26 14:27 -0800
          Re: _Underscores have never been -- and could never be -- a problem. Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-12-27 13:25 +0200
            Re: Compiling C++ is trivial, always. Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-12-27 21:38 +0200
              Re: Compiling C++ is trivial, always. Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-27 20:01 +0000
                Re: Compiling C++ is trivial, always. Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-12-27 22:20 +0200
              Re: How big are your .CPP files ( in MegaBytes, not lines ) ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-12-28 00:02 +0200
                Re: You could condense it down into fewer, larger, .CPP files. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-28 14:11 +1300
                  Re: What are you compiling, and how long does it take ? ! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-28 15:34 +1300
                    Re: Are you Linus Torvalds ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-28 16:14 +1300
                      Re: The _Default "Subject:" line is neither mandatory or desirable. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-28 17:35 +1300
                        Re: Would a hardware/software upgrade help ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-29 08:09 +1300
                        Re: The _Default "Subject:" line is neither mandatory or desirable. legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2016-12-28 20:01 +0000
            Re: I don't create .h files, not a one. Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2017-01-16 19:03 +0000
          Re: _Underscores have never been -- and could never be -- a problem. Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-12-27 05:58 -0800
            Re: _Loop() works fine; I don't use "concurrent_vector.h". Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-27 22:14 +0000
            Re: _Loop() works fine; I don't use "concurrent_vector.h". Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-12-28 02:08 -0800
              Re: _Loop() works fine; I don't use "concurrent_vector.h". woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-28 09:45 -0800
        Re: "Standards" are like assholes, everyone's got one. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-27 12:34 +1300
    Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-12-24 10:40 +0100
      Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-26 17:41 -0800
        Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-27 15:28 +1300
    Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). jonkalb <google@kalbweb.com> - 2016-12-26 23:24 -0800
      Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-27 10:54 -0800
        Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-28 11:26 +1300
          Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-27 20:36 -0800
            Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-28 17:42 +1300
              Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-27 21:24 -0800
                Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-27 22:16 -0800
                Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-28 13:29 -0800
                  Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-29 10:46 +1300
                Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-30 09:55 +1300
                  Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-29 14:19 -0800
                    Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-30 11:25 +1300
                      Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-29 21:59 -0800
                        Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-30 21:27 +1300
                          Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 09:51 -0800
                            Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2016-12-30 19:46 +0100
                    Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-30 10:07 +0100
                    Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 02:49 -0800
                      Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 03:17 -0800
                Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-29 10:08 +1300
                Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-28 12:41 -0800
                  Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2016-12-28 21:59 +0000
                    Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2016-12-29 14:34 +0100
                      Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-29 10:27 -0800
                        Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2016-12-29 20:33 +0100
                    Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-28 15:14 -0800
                      Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-29 13:05 +1300
                Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2016-12-28 19:36 +0000

Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7  Next page →

#48193 — Re: Negative Interest Rates.

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:

> You ( GreyCloud ) replied ( to me ):
>> > Sounds like you've been put out to pasture.
>> > Likely, you have health issues.
>> 
>> Nope, I was very expensive and the gov. offered me
>> a retirement package I couldn't refuse.
> 
> I'm not "too expensive".

Then that is what your company deems you are worth then.

> 
>> Everyone in the world would be better off if Trump kicked the private bankers
>> out of this country and go back to the original Bank of Congress...
>> no interest on loans, the way it used to be.
> 
> Google "negative interest rates":
> https://www.google.com/search?q=negative+interest+rates
> 
> It's real thing, but only in _highly developed countries.

In other words, the bankers are ripping people off.
It won't be long till they collapse.

-- 
My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48205 — Negative Interest Rates "rips off" rich people, not the poor.

What is GreyCloud complaining about ? !
And why is he proud of being "too expensive" for his former employers ?
I think he's gotten into the peyote.

Negative Interest Rates "rip off" rich people, not the poor.
"Greedy Bankers" had _nothing to do with it.

We see it _only in the _richest countries; to wit:
Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, and Japan.

Google "guaranteed minimum income":
https://www.google.com/search?q=guaranteed+minimum+income

Pick your Least Worst option, and hope for the Least Worst outcome.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48223 — Re: Negative Interest Rates "rips off" rich people, not the poor.

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:

> What is GreyCloud complaining about ? !

You don't know your U.S. history very well.
Get rid of the Federal Reserve and kick out the foreign bankers.
Go back to Gold and Silver that resists inflation and also is debt free.
No interest rates at all.
Right now, you are a debt slave.

> And why is he proud of being "too expensive" for his former employers ?
> I think he's gotten into the peyote.
> 
> Negative Interest Rates "rip off" rich people, not the poor.
> "Greedy Bankers" had _nothing to do with it.
> 
> We see it _only in the _richest countries; to wit:
> Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, and Japan.
> 
> Google "guaranteed minimum income":
> https://www.google.com/search?q=guaranteed+minimum+income
> 
> Pick your Least Worst option, and hope for the Least Worst outcome.

-- 
My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48168 — Tons of people have reviewed the code, source and object.

You ( MrDFS ) replied ( to me ):
> > I've been programming for "The Bankers" ( ABA.COM )
> > for the last 24 years... they haven't fired me yet.
> > What about you ?
> 
> That just means no other programmers above you have read the code.

_Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Tons of people have reviewed the code, source and object,
at great expense, including bankers and professors, lots of them,
and some Visual Studio guys, at MicroSoft.

I've enjoyed 24 years of that, no less.

> You know - and everyone else knows - your coding style 
> (not necessarily the performance or functionality) is substandard.  
> 
> I consider it a violation of professional ethics for you 
> to deliver code formatted the way you do.

I write _serious code, unmaintainable code,
the kind that does _serious work, no joking around.

WhiteSpace and silly comments are for comic strips
and tinker toys, not real work.

Running the code, testing it,
is how one knows what's up, not whitespace and (borked) comments.

If whitespace and (borked) comments is what you need/like,
then add them yourself, later... _I don't want to see that crap.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48170 — Building a complex system can't be done when you're drunk and horny.

Speaking of "easy to maintain" (joke) code, you ( DFS ) replied:
> > Part of the gig, at least, nowadays, is not leaving a mess for the next guy.
> 
> That's right.  So when you're playing guitar on stage and get drunk and 
> puke, you clean it up for the main act.  You've been there...

Getting drunk and horny on stage is not, _not like coding.

Building a complex system can't be done when you're drunk and horny.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48172 — Re: Building a complex system can't be done when you're drunk and horny.

On 19/01/17 13:17, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
<rant>

Look, could people /please/ stop cross-posting this nonsense back and
forth between newsgroups?

If Jeff wants to write line-noise and force a C++ compiler to accept it,
that's his business.  It is not unreasonable to have a /single/ thread
in comp.lang.c++ about it where real C++ developers can tell him his
mistakes and try to teach him how to write better code.

But what we in c.l.c++ /don't/ want is this jumble of different threads,
half cross-posted to wildly different groups, full of irrelevances,
topic-jumps, and missing half the posts because some people try to set
newsgroup follow-ups, some people change groups, and some people switch
back to cross-posting.

Anyone from comp.os.linux.advocacy or sci.physics is welcome here in
comp.lang.c++ if you want to talk about C++.  But /please/ learn to use
Usenet properly first!  I cannot imagine any topic that would make sense
to cross-post between all these groups.

</rant>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48175 — No one is here to learn at your feet, sorry.

No one is here to learn at your feet, David Brown.
Here, it's all play and no work, uncensored.

I suggest you drop all posts from me, 
Comp.OS.Linux.Advocacy, and  Sci.Physics .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48176 — Re: Building a complex system can't be done when you're drunk and horny.

David Brown wrote:

>But what we in c.l.c++ /don't/ want is this jumble of different threads,
>half cross-posted to wildly different groups, full of irrelevances,
>topic-jumps,

All part of the Relf troll's plan, man.  I plonk people simply for
responding to his garbage.  I don't want to see it.

-- 
"He disabled 17 MS compiler warnings out of ~3000.  Not that I would
do it, but it's not the end of the world."  -  "DFS"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48177 — Building a complex system can't be done when you're drunk and horny.

MrChrisV quotes MrDFS ( speaking of me ):
> " He disabled 17 MS compiler warnings out of ~3000.  
>   Not that I would do it, but it's not the end of the world."

Yes, and here's why, in detail:
  http://Jeff-Relf.Me/C++CodingRules.HTM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48210 — Re: Building a complex system can't be done when you're drunk and horny.

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:

>On 19/01/17 13:17, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
><rant>

>Look, could people /please/ stop cross-posting this nonsense back and
>forth between newsgroups?

>If Jeff wants to write line-noise and force a C++ compiler to accept it,
>that's his business.  It is not unreasonable to have a /single/ thread
>in comp.lang.c++ about it where real C++ developers can tell him his
>mistakes and try to teach him how to write better code.

>But what we in c.l.c++ /don't/ want is this jumble of different threads,
>half cross-posted to wildly different groups, full of irrelevances,
>topic-jumps, and missing half the posts because some people try to set
>newsgroup follow-ups, some people change groups, and some people switch
>back to cross-posting.

Mostly Relf's fault. He never did learn the purpose of the Newsgroups:
header, plus he changes the Subject: every time which breaks threading
in a few newsreaders.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48213 — Usenet isn't WikiPedia; here, it's all play and no work, anything goes.

Usenet isn't WikiPedia; here, it's all play and no work, anything goes.

The _Default "Subject:" line is neither mandatory or desirable.

Quoting 
" rfc1036: Standard for Interchange of USENET Messages "
https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc1036/rfc1036.html#z4
＜＜

  The "Subject" line ( formerly "Title" ) 
  tells what the message is about.

  It __Should be suggestive enough of the contents of the message
  to enable a reader to make a decision whether to read 
  the message BASED ON THE SUBJECT ALONE. 

  If the message is submitted in response to another message 
  ( e.g., is a follow-up ) the _Default subject should 
  begin with the four characters "Re:", and the 
  "References" line is required.  ＞＞

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47803 — The "Least Longest" diffs.

My diff routine (posted) produces the "Least Longest" diffs;
and I can explain the algorithm in detail.

There are 4 pairs of pointers scaning from top to bottom
and bottom to top, meeting in the middle;
each pair notes the begging and end of a diff pair.

The LeftOlder text file scans the RightNewer file, 
and vice versa, in lock step, all advancing at the same rate.

For nearby comparisons, One Match ( not counting blank lines ) is best;
more matches are needed when "zooming out" hundreds of lines;
otherwise, one might get an excessively large diff based on a bad match.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47812 — Re: #define came from God himself, it's sacred.

On 03/01/2017 03:58, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Gee, the code from the forged Relf looks better than the code from
> the real Jeff.
>
FFS - HE's got a stalker???

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48111 — Re: LoopP( !isDigit( Ch ) );

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 10:02:37 AM UTC-8, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> Paavo Helde wrote:
> > _Loop(4) however is just undefined behavior, 
> > one is not allowed to use such identifiers.
> 
> If that "one" is you, then yes; otherwise, no.
> 

<atrocious code deleted>

Even if you have successfully removed the offending identifiers, all you have succeeded in doing is converting illegal code into immoral code.

Jeff, Have you found a single individual in this group that has thanked you (sincerely) for posting either your code or your coding guidelines in this group?

I've asked you several times not to post and I'm not alone in this group. It isn't just because seeing this is a waste of our time, it's that some impressionable mind might see your code and think that it is an acceptable style for professional C++. When/if this happens they will either  abandon all attempts to write C++ or, and this is far worse, they'll emulate your style.

So there are two possibilities. One is that the other participants in this group and I are correct and your code is unworthy of emulation. The other possibility, and let's seriously consider this, is that you are a coding genius with a unique insight into *the one true way to code* and that I and every other participant in this group are such complete morons that they not only don't know how to write good code, they don't even recognize it when you show it to them.

But notice that either case has the same implication. Either you are unworthy to post your rantings here or we are unworthy to see your brilliance posted here. In either case:

    !!!! PLEASE STOP POSTING HERE !!!

Thanks.

Jon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48121 — Re: LoopP( !isDigit( Ch ) );

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 12:05:25 AM UTC-6, jonkalb wrote:
> On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 10:02:37 AM UTC-8, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> > Paavo Helde wrote:
> > > _Loop(4) however is just undefined behavior, 
> > > one is not allowed to use such identifiers.
> > 
> > If that "one" is you, then yes; otherwise, no.
> > 
> 
> <atrocious code deleted>
> 
> Even if you have successfully removed the offending identifiers, all you have succeeded in doing is converting illegal code into immoral code.
> 
> Jeff, Have you found a single individual in this group that has thanked you (sincerely) for posting either your code or your coding guidelines in this group?
> 
> I've asked you several times not to post and I'm not alone in this group. It isn't just because seeing this is a waste of our time, it's that some impressionable mind might see your code and think that it is an acceptable style for professional C++. When/if this happens they will either  abandon all attempts to write C++ or, and this is far worse, they'll emulate your style.
> 
> So there are two possibilities. One is that the other participants in this group and I are correct and your code is unworthy of emulation. The other possibility, and let's seriously consider this, is that you are a coding genius with a unique insight into *the one true way to code* and that I and every other participant in this group are such complete morons that they not only don't know how to write good code, they don't even recognize it when you show it to them.
> 
> But notice that either case has the same implication. Either you are unworthy to post your rantings here or we are unworthy to see your brilliance posted here. In either case:
> 
>     !!!! PLEASE STOP POSTING HERE !!!
> 


I'm with you about 99%, but not with the yelling/caps.
I probably would have written - Please stop posting here
for a month or two.  Possibly in a month or two we would
have the same problem, but I also believe people can change.


Brian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48126 — Re: LoopP( !isDigit( Ch ) );

On 17/01/17 20:17, woodbrian77@gmail.com wrote:

> I'm with you about 99%, but not with the yelling/caps.
> I probably would have written - Please stop posting here
> for a month or two.  Possibly in a month or two we would
> have the same problem, but I also believe people can change.
>

You have made it perfectly clear that /you/ are unwilling to change, no 
matter how much some of your habits annoy other people.  Why do you 
think this muppet Jeff will change?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48125 — Re: LoopP( !isDigit( Ch ) );

On 01/17/2017 03:05 AM, jonkalb wrote:
> On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 10:02:37 AM UTC-8, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>> Paavo Helde wrote:
>>> _Loop(4) however is just undefined behavior,
>>> one is not allowed to use such identifiers.
>>
>> If that "one" is you, then yes; otherwise, no.
>>
>
> <atrocious code deleted>
>

LOL  x-D  x-D


>
>     !!!! PLEASE STOP POSTING HERE !!!
>

Just add him to your kill file (his posts are so hilarious that, just 
for now, he is still in my white list!)


-- 
Cholo Lennon
Bs.As.
ARG

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48129 — Re: LoopP( !isDigit( Ch ) );

On 17/01/2017 21:18, Cholo Lennon wrote:
> Just add him to your kill file (his posts are so hilarious that, just
> for now, he is still in my white list!)

I've killfiled him. It seems ever so quiet now...

I put up with sausages and Christianity. Their posters have value.

Andy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47627 — Re: while() and "Loop(3) { _Loop(4)..." aren't "impenetrable".

On Monday, 26 December 2016 22:36:39 UTC+2, Jeff-Relf.Me  wrote:
> You ( Paavo Helde ) replied ( to me ):
> > > 6. Local, ShortTerm variables are nice.  Like:
> > >
> > >       wchar _T[999], *P = _T ;
> > >
> > >       Loop(3) { _Loop(4) P += Str( P, L"( %d, %d )%s", J, JJ, J == eJ ? L"\n" :  L" " );  }
> > >
> > >       printf( _T );
> > >
> > >       Globals:
> > >
> > >         #define   Loop( N )  int         eJ = ( N ) - 1, J = -1 ; while ( ++J <= eJ )
> > >         #define  _Loop( N )  int JJ = J, eJ = ( N ) - 1, J = -1 ; while ( ++J <= eJ )
> > >         #define  Str  swprintf
> > >         typedef  wchar_t  wchar ;
> > >
> > >       Output:
> > >
> > >         ( 0, 0 ) ( 1, 0 ) ( 2, 0 ) ( 3, 0 )
> > >         ( 0, 1 ) ( 1, 1 ) ( 2, 1 ) ( 3, 1 )
> > >         ( 0, 2 ) ( 1, 2 ) ( 2, 2 ) ( 3, 2 )
> > >
> > > See X.CPP in "Jeff-Relf.Me/X.ZIP".
> > 
> > A creative mix of macros and templates makes the code even more 
> > impenetrable. Your _Loop macros could be probably upgraded to use 
> > recursive templates instead of boring while cycles, for example!
> 
> while() and "Loop(3) { _Loop(4)..." aren't "impenetrable", last I checked.

Huh? Even name of that _Loop is illegal both by C++ (17.4.3.1.2) and C
(7.1.3) standards. When noobs use reserved names then behavior of
program is undefined.

  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47628 — Re: "Standards" are like assholes, everyone's got one.

On Monday, 26 December 2016 23:54:44 UTC+2, Jeff-Relf.Me  wrote:
> You ( Öö Tiib ) replied ( to me ):
> > > while() and "Loop(3) { _Loop(4)..." aren't "impenetrable", last I checked.
> > 
> > Huh? Even name of that _Loop is illegal both by C++ (17.4.3.1.2) and C
> > (7.1.3) standards. When noobs use reserved names then behavior of
> > program is undefined.
> 
> Local definitions override previous ones.
> 
> Underscores are too useful to not use.
> 
> "Standards" are like assholes, everyone's got one.

I am not sure what standards you talk about. I meant ISO standards of
those two languages. Definitions of how the compilers of those languages
should be implemented. 

Now if you violate the standards as user of compiler then standard-
conforming compiler may (but likely won't) yes rip you second asshole.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web