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

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #44552 > unrolled thread

"Unicode"

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

Contents

  "Unicode" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2016-08-29 12:06 -0500
    Re: "Unicode" Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2016-08-29 11:52 -0700
      Re: "Unicode" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 12:24 -0500
        Re: "Unicode" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2016-08-30 18:50 +0000
          Re: "Unicode" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 14:11 -0500
            Re: "Unicode" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2016-08-30 19:44 +0000
          Re: "Unicode" Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-30 21:29 +0100
            Re: "Unicode" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2016-08-31 20:31 +0000
              Re: "Unicode" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 01:50 +0200
                Re: "Unicode" Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 18:47 -0700
                  Re: "Unicode" "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-09-01 06:01 -0500
                Re: "Unicode" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-31 23:06 -0400
                  Re: "Unicode" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-01 15:21 +1200
                    Re: "Unicode" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 15:07 -0400
                  Re: "Unicode" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 08:02 +0200
                    Re: "Unicode" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2016-09-01 18:46 +0000
                  Re: "Unicode" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-01 10:09 +0200
                  Re: "Unicode" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-01 17:58 +0100
                    Re: "Unicode" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 15:08 -0400
                      Re: "Unicode" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-01 21:20 +0100
                        Re: "Unicode" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 20:52 -0400
                          Re: "Unicode" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-02 14:44 +0100
                            Re: "Unicode" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-02 10:10 -0400
                              Re: "Unicode" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-02 16:35 +0100
                                Re: "Unicode" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-02 12:26 -0400
                              Re: "Unicode" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-02 17:02 +0100
                                Re: "Unicode" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-02 12:33 -0400
                                  Re: "Unicode" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-02 17:53 +0100
                                    Re: "Unicode" Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 19:20 +0100
                                    Re: "Unicode" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-02 16:36 -0400
                                      Re: "Unicode" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-02 21:45 +0100
                                        Re: "Unicode" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-02 19:57 -0400
                Re: "Unicode" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2016-09-01 18:45 +0000
                  Re: "Unicode" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 15:11 -0400
                  Re: "Unicode" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-01 22:27 +0200
                    Re: "Unicode" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-01 21:37 +0100
                    Re: "Unicode" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 20:53 -0400
                  Re: "Unicode" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 05:57 +0200
        Re: "Unicode" Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk> - 2016-08-30 21:30 +0200
          Re: "Unicode" Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk> - 2016-08-30 21:40 +0200
          Re: "Unicode" Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 13:39 -0700
    Re: "Unicode" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-01 21:54 +0100
      Re: "Unicode" raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-09-03 08:00 +0000
        Re: "Unicode" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-03 14:10 -0500
          Re: "Unicode" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 09:56 +0200
            Re: "Unicode" Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-09-04 14:37 +0300
              Re: "Unicode" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-05 12:53 +0200
                Re: "Unicode" Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-09-05 15:30 +0300
                  Re: "Unicode" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-05 16:13 +0200
                    Re: "Unicode" Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-09-05 22:03 +0300
                      Re: "Unicode" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-05 23:54 +0200
                        Re: "Unicode" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-05 15:35 -0700
                          Re: "Unicode" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 00:18 +0200
                            Re: "Unicode" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-05 16:17 -0700
                              Re: "Unicode" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 01:20 +0200
                                Re: "Unicode" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-05 17:16 -0700
                                  Re: "Unicode" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 02:42 +0200
                        Re: "Unicode" Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-05 23:05 +0100
            Re: "Unicode" Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-04 21:37 +0100
              Re: "Unicode" Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-09-05 00:22 +0300
                Re: "Unicode" Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-05 21:32 +0100
                  Re: "Unicode" Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-09-06 00:00 +0300
                    Re: "Unicode" Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-07 21:19 +0100
                      Re: "Unicode" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 02:16 +0200

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#44552 — "Unicode"

"Unicode"
    http://xkcd.com/1726/

"Watching the Unicode people try to govern the infinite chaos of human language with consistent technical standards is like watching 
highway engineers try to steer a river using traffic signs."

As usual, Randall Munroe nails it.

Lynn

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#44553

On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 1:06:54 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> "Unicode"
>     http://xkcd.com/1726/
> 
> "Watching the Unicode people try to govern the infinite chaos of human language with consistent technical standards is like watching 
> highway engineers try to steer a river using traffic signs."
> 
> As usual, Randall Munroe nails it.
> 
Has he though? On this one?

I think the Unicode people have vastly simplified many people's lives.

Admittedly, C++ has badly screwed this up.

Daniel

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

#44605

On 8/29/2016 1:52 PM, Daniel wrote:
> On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 1:06:54 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> "Unicode"
>>     http://xkcd.com/1726/
>>
>> "Watching the Unicode people try to govern the infinite chaos of human language with consistent technical standards is like watching
>> highway engineers try to steer a river using traffic signs."
>>
>> As usual, Randall Munroe nails it.
>>
> Has he though? On this one?
>
> I think the Unicode people have vastly simplified many people's lives.
>
> Admittedly, C++ has badly screwed this up.
>
> Daniel

Microsoft has a big hand in the screw up with their decision to go with wide characters.  But the Unicode consortium is getting wacky 
here lately with adding emoticons to Unicode.
    http://blog.unicode.org/2016/06/unicode-90-emoji-available-for-adoption.html

Lynn

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

#44608

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

>On 8/29/2016 1:52 PM, Daniel wrote:
>> Admittedly, C++ has badly screwed this up.

I think you have your history backwards.  C and C++ predate unicode.

The general consensus seems to be that you should use std::string with
UTF-8 encoding to add basic unicode support.  You can always get
fancier if you need it with Qt, wxWidgets, UCS, etc.
-- 
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
     The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
         The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org>
  Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

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

#44615

On 8/30/2016 1:50 PM, Richard wrote:
> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
>> On 8/29/2016 1:52 PM, Daniel wrote:
>>> Admittedly, C++ has badly screwed this up.
>
> I think you have your history backwards.  C and C++ predate unicode.
>
> The general consensus seems to be that you should use std::string with
> UTF-8 encoding to add basic unicode support.  You can always get
> fancier if you need it with Qt, wxWidgets, UCS, etc.

You are replying to the wrong person.

Lynn

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

#44619

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> spake the secret code
<nq4lph$dff$1@dont-email.me> thusly:

>On 8/30/2016 1:50 PM, Richard wrote:
>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>>
>>> On 8/29/2016 1:52 PM, Daniel wrote:
>>>> Admittedly, C++ has badly screwed this up.
>>
>> I think you have your history backwards.  C and C++ predate unicode.
>>
>> The general consensus seems to be that you should use std::string with
>> UTF-8 encoding to add basic unicode support.  You can always get
>> fancier if you need it with Qt, wxWidgets, UCS, etc.
>
>You are replying to the wrong person.

No, the attribution is correct, unless you're claiming to also be
posting under Daniel.[*]  He's in my KILL file (probably for failure
to exercise self-control and flame on and on and on about religion)
so I don't see his messages unless someone else quotes him.

[*] the References header mentions your post because you quoted him.
-- 
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
     The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
         The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org>
  Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

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

#44620

On 30/08/2016 19:50, Richard wrote:
> The general consensus seems to be that you should use std::string with
> UTF-8 encoding to add basic unicode support.  You can always get
> fancier if you need it with Qt, wxWidgets, UCS, etc.

It's the general consensus in the Linux world.

At the time that the C++ standard decided that it was not necessary to 
handle file names with anything other than narrow chars Windows had most 
of the desktop. And had file names that were not narrow chars. So the 
C++ standard didn't support most of the desktops out there.

Andy

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

#44642

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> spake the secret code
<KMidnZveE6s6cVjKnZ2dnUU78K_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> thusly:

>At the time that the C++ standard decided that it was not necessary to 
>handle file names with anything other than narrow chars [...]

C++ had been around for 15+ years before it was standardized.  The
standardization process was capturing existing practice more than it
was introducing fundamental changes to the language.
-- 
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
     The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
         The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org>
  Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

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

#44645

On 31.08.2016 22:31, Richard wrote:
> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> spake the secret code
> <KMidnZveE6s6cVjKnZ2dnUU78K_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> thusly:
>
>> At the time that the C++ standard decided that it was not necessary to
>> handle file names with anything other than narrow chars [...]
>
> C++ had been around for 15+ years before it was standardized.  The
> standardization process was capturing existing practice more

Uhm, that's bollocks.

One would have to search long and hard and wide to find a 
standardization with more pure innovation than C++98.

Namespaces, exceptions, most of the standard library. Even compared to 
the ARM it was extreme. Compiler vendors had a hard time catching up, 
authors detailed their choices of practically necessary compatibility 
trade-offs so as to not confer wrong impressions to their readers.


> than it was introducing fundamental changes to the language.

Uhm, ditto. Sorry.


Cheers & hth.,

- ALf

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

#44647

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 7:50:59 PM UTC-4, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> 
> One would have to search long and hard and wide to find a 
> standardization with more pure innovation than C++98.
> 
> Namespaces, exceptions, most of the standard library

and export :-)

Best regards,
Daniel

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

#44663

"Daniel" <danielaparker@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:4a13de5a-a74e-4edc-bf54-64a23514c0f4@googlegroups.com...
> On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 7:50:59 PM UTC-4, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>
>> One would have to search long and hard and wide to find a
>> standardization with more pure innovation than C++98.
>>
>> Namespaces, exceptions, most of the standard library
>
> and export :-)

LOL 

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

#44648

On 8/31/2016 7:50 PM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> On 31.08.2016 22:31, Richard wrote:
>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>>
>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> spake the secret code
>> <KMidnZveE6s6cVjKnZ2dnUU78K_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> thusly:
>>
>>> At the time that the C++ standard decided that it was not necessary to
>>> handle file names with anything other than narrow chars [...]
>>
>> C++ had been around for 15+ years before it was standardized.  The
>> standardization process was capturing existing practice more
> 
> Uhm, that's bollocks.
> 
> One would have to search long and hard and wide to find a
> standardization with more pure innovation than C++98.
>

Sorry, Richard is correct.  C++98 was NOT the first standard.

> Namespaces, exceptions, most of the standard library. Even compared to
> the ARM it was extreme. Compiler vendors had a hard time catching up,
> authors detailed their choices of practically necessary compatibility
> trade-offs so as to not confer wrong impressions to their readers.
> 

None of these were included in the initial C++ standard.

> 
>> than it was introducing fundamental changes to the language.
> 
> Uhm, ditto. Sorry.
> 
> 
> Cheers & hth.,
> 
> - ALf
> 

Later standards added these feature.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

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

#44650

On 09/ 1/16 03:06 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 8/31/2016 7:50 PM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>> On 31.08.2016 22:31, Richard wrote:
>>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>>>
>>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> spake the secret code
>>> <KMidnZveE6s6cVjKnZ2dnUU78K_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> thusly:
>>>
>>>> At the time that the C++ standard decided that it was not necessary to
>>>> handle file names with anything other than narrow chars [...]
>>>
>>> C++ had been around for 15+ years before it was standardized.  The
>>> standardization process was capturing existing practice more
>>
>> Uhm, that's bollocks.
>>
>> One would have to search long and hard and wide to find a
>> standardization with more pure innovation than C++98.
>>
>
> Sorry, Richard is correct.  C++98 was NOT the first standard.

So what was?

-- 
Ian

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

#44692

On 8/31/2016 11:21 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 09/ 1/16 03:06 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 8/31/2016 7:50 PM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>> On 31.08.2016 22:31, Richard wrote:
>>>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>>>>
>>>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> spake the secret code
>>>> <KMidnZveE6s6cVjKnZ2dnUU78K_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> thusly:
>>>>
>>>>> At the time that the C++ standard decided that it was not necessary to
>>>>> handle file names with anything other than narrow chars [...]
>>>>
>>>> C++ had been around for 15+ years before it was standardized.  The
>>>> standardization process was capturing existing practice more
>>>
>>> Uhm, that's bollocks.
>>>
>>> One would have to search long and hard and wide to find a
>>> standardization with more pure innovation than C++98.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, Richard is correct.  C++98 was NOT the first standard.
> 
> So what was?
> 

C++98 was the first ANSI/ISO standard.  However, Stroustrups's book "The
C++ Programming Language" 1st and 2nd editions were recognized as the
standard before that time.  The 3rd edition was considered a standard by
some, but ANSI was already working on a consensus standard by the time
the book came out.

But if you understood ANYTHING about the history of C++, you would know
that.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

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

#44651

On 01.09.2016 05:06, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 8/31/2016 7:50 PM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>> On 31.08.2016 22:31, Richard wrote:
>>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>>>
>>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> spake the secret code
>>> <KMidnZveE6s6cVjKnZ2dnUU78K_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> thusly:
>>>
>>>> At the time that the C++ standard decided that it was not necessary to
>>>> handle file names with anything other than narrow chars [...]
>>>
>>> C++ had been around for 15+ years before it was standardized.  The
>>> standardization process was capturing existing practice more
>>
>> Uhm, that's bollocks.
>>
>> One would have to search long and hard and wide to find a
>> standardization with more pure innovation than C++98.
>>
>
> Sorry, Richard is correct.  C++98 was NOT the first standard.

I think Richard's error was just one of perception.

He shouldn't have posted those claims without checking, or including 
qualifier phrases such as "I believe".

You, on the other hand, are just blatantly counter-factual. Why do you 
persist in that? Why not try to be a bit constructive and maybe learn 
something?


Baffled,

- Alf

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

#44690

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

"Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> spake the secret code
<nq8ga7$r8a$1@dont-email.me> thusly:

>I think Richard's error was just one of perception.
>
>He shouldn't have posted those claims without checking, or including 
>qualifier phrases such as "I believe".

Yep, it was just my understanding (who else would I be posting for?)
and my understanding was wrong.  Now I'm interested in reading more
about this period in the history of C++.
-- 
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
     The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
         The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org>
  Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

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

#44654

On 01/09/16 05:06, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 8/31/2016 7:50 PM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>> On 31.08.2016 22:31, Richard wrote:
>>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>>>
>>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> spake the secret code
>>> <KMidnZveE6s6cVjKnZ2dnUU78K_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> thusly:
>>>
>>>> At the time that the C++ standard decided that it was not necessary to
>>>> handle file names with anything other than narrow chars [...]
>>>
>>> C++ had been around for 15+ years before it was standardized.  The
>>> standardization process was capturing existing practice more
>>
>> Uhm, that's bollocks.
>>
>> One would have to search long and hard and wide to find a
>> standardization with more pure innovation than C++98.
>>
> 
> Sorry, Richard is correct.  C++98 was NOT the first standard.

C++98 was the first /ISO/ standard of C++.

The first edition of "The C++ Programming Language" (1985) was the
defining reference for the language, but it was not an official
standard.  The same applies to the ARM (1990).

C++ itself was from 1983 (after 4 years as "C with classes").

So Richard is correct on the timings, C++ had been around for 15 years
before it was standardised (C++98).

I can't comment on how much C++98 standardised existing practice or
invented new features - I don't know the tools of that era well enough.
 Alf and Richard can fight that one if they want.

It is quite possible that the ARM was based on existing practice, and
certainly likely that "The C++ Programming Language" was based on
existing practice.  But those were not standards, and they were not
written 15 or so years after C++ was first developed.

> 
>> Namespaces, exceptions, most of the standard library. Even compared to
>> the ARM it was extreme. Compiler vendors had a hard time catching up,
>> authors detailed their choices of practically necessary compatibility
>> trade-offs so as to not confer wrong impressions to their readers.
>>
> 
> None of these were included in the initial C++ standard.

The initial C++ standard was C++98, and included those features.


> 
>>
>>> than it was introducing fundamental changes to the language.
>>
>> Uhm, ditto. Sorry.
>>
>>
>> Cheers & hth.,
>>
>> - ALf
>>
> 
> Later standards added these feature.
> 

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

#44687

On 01/09/2016 04:06, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 8/31/2016 7:50 PM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>> On 31.08.2016 22:31, Richard wrote:
>>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>>>
>>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> spake the secret code
>>> <KMidnZveE6s6cVjKnZ2dnUU78K_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> thusly:
>>>
>>>> At the time that the C++ standard decided that it was not necessary to
>>>> handle file names with anything other than narrow chars [...]
>>>
>>> C++ had been around for 15+ years before it was standardized.  The
>>> standardization process was capturing existing practice more
>>
>> Uhm, that's bollocks.
>>
>> One would have to search long and hard and wide to find a
>> standardization with more pure innovation than C++98.
>>
>
> Sorry, Richard is correct.  C++98 was NOT the first standard.
>

C++98 was the first C++ standard.

I see the scope of your fractal wrongness is very wide indeed; I wonder 
if there is a topic that your are NOT fractally wrong about?

/Flibble

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

#44693

On 9/1/2016 12:58 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 01/09/2016 04:06, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 8/31/2016 7:50 PM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>> On 31.08.2016 22:31, Richard wrote:
>>>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>>>>
>>>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> spake the secret code
>>>> <KMidnZveE6s6cVjKnZ2dnUU78K_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> thusly:
>>>>
>>>>> At the time that the C++ standard decided that it was not necessary to
>>>>> handle file names with anything other than narrow chars [...]
>>>>
>>>> C++ had been around for 15+ years before it was standardized.  The
>>>> standardization process was capturing existing practice more
>>>
>>> Uhm, that's bollocks.
>>>
>>> One would have to search long and hard and wide to find a
>>> standardization with more pure innovation than C++98.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, Richard is correct.  C++98 was NOT the first standard.
>>
> 
> C++98 was the first C++ standard.
> 
> I see the scope of your fractal wrongness is very wide indeed; I wonder
> if there is a topic that your are NOT fractally wrong about?
> 
> /Flibble
> 

And once again you show your head is so far up your arse that you can
see your tonsils.

ANSI/IOC are NOT the only recognized standards in the world!

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

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

#44701

On 01/09/2016 20:08, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 9/1/2016 12:58 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 01/09/2016 04:06, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 8/31/2016 7:50 PM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>>> On 31.08.2016 22:31, Richard wrote:
>>>>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>>>>>
>>>>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> spake the secret code
>>>>> <KMidnZveE6s6cVjKnZ2dnUU78K_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> thusly:
>>>>>
>>>>>> At the time that the C++ standard decided that it was not necessary to
>>>>>> handle file names with anything other than narrow chars [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> C++ had been around for 15+ years before it was standardized.  The
>>>>> standardization process was capturing existing practice more
>>>>
>>>> Uhm, that's bollocks.
>>>>
>>>> One would have to search long and hard and wide to find a
>>>> standardization with more pure innovation than C++98.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, Richard is correct.  C++98 was NOT the first standard.
>>>
>>
>> C++98 was the first C++ standard.
>>
>> I see the scope of your fractal wrongness is very wide indeed; I wonder
>> if there is a topic that your are NOT fractally wrong about?
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> And once again you show your head is so far up your arse that you can
> see your tonsils.
>
> ANSI/IOC are NOT the only recognized standards in the world!

Isn't it blindingly obvious that when someone uses the term "C++ 
standard" they are referring to a C++ ISO standard?  Your fractal 
wrongness does indeed run deep, fractally deep.

/Flibble

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web