Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #81271 > unrolled thread
| Started by | alessandro volturno <alessandro.volturno@libero.it> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-09-16 14:59 +0200 |
| Last post | 2021-09-24 02:48 -0700 |
| Articles | 10 on this page of 230 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
rational numbers alessandro volturno <alessandro.volturno@libero.it> - 2021-09-16 14:59 +0200
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-16 16:40 +0300
Re: rational numbers alessandro volturno <alessandro.volturno@libero.it> - 2021-09-16 18:24 +0200
Re: rational numbers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-16 17:05 +0000
Re: rational numbers Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-09-16 19:58 +0200
Re: rational numbers Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2021-09-17 09:21 +0200
Re: rational numbers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-17 10:34 +0200
Re: rational numbers Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2021-09-17 15:55 +0200
Re: rational numbers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-17 17:49 +0200
Re: rational numbers Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2021-09-17 18:22 +0200
Re: rational numbers Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2021-09-17 22:07 +1200
Re: rational numbers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-17 13:32 +0200
Re: rational numbers Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2021-09-18 09:15 +1200
Re: rational numbers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-17 14:06 +0000
Re: rational numbers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-16 20:41 +0200
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-16 21:11 +0100
Re: rational numbers Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-16 21:26 +0100
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-16 21:54 +0100
Re: rational numbers "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2021-09-16 23:07 +0200
Re: rational numbers "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2021-09-16 23:27 +0200
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-16 23:12 +0300
Re: rational numbers alessandro volturno <alessandro.volturno@libero.it> - 2021-09-17 09:50 +0200
Re: rational numbers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-17 11:15 +0200
Re: rational numbers alessandro volturno <alessandro.volturno@libero.it> - 2021-09-17 19:19 +0200
Re: rational numbers James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-09-17 19:00 -0400
Re: rational numbers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-18 11:39 +0200
Re: rational numbers alessandro volturno <alessandro.volturno@libero.it> - 2021-09-18 11:56 +0200
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-18 11:01 +0100
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-17 05:36 +0000
Re: rational numbers alessandro volturno <alessandro.volturno@libero.it> - 2021-09-17 09:55 +0200
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-17 11:16 +0000
Re: rational numbers alessandro volturno <alessandro.volturno@libero.it> - 2021-09-17 18:33 +0200
Re: rational numbers Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-06 13:06 -0700
Re: rational numbers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-17 14:03 +0000
Re: rational numbers Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2021-09-17 17:12 +0200
Re: rational numbers Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2021-09-17 17:16 +0200
Re: rational numbers Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-09-17 18:59 +0200
Re: rational numbers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-17 17:13 +0000
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-19 10:17 +0000
Re: rational numbers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-19 14:07 +0000
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-19 15:58 +0000
Re: rational numbers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-19 21:53 +0000
Re: rational numbers Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2021-09-18 09:34 +1200
Re: rational numbers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-18 12:00 +0200
Re: rational numbers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-18 14:54 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-18 17:36 +0100
Re: rational numbers Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2021-09-18 23:29 +0200
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-19 01:09 +0100
Re: rational numbers red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2021-09-18 23:45 -0700
Re: rational numbers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-18 22:48 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-19 00:46 +0100
Re: rational numbers Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2021-09-19 08:06 +0200
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-19 10:26 +0100
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-19 10:23 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-19 12:04 +0100
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-19 16:01 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-19 17:39 +0100
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-20 05:25 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-20 10:37 +0100
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-22 04:58 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-22 11:26 +0100
Re: rational numbers Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2021-09-22 23:13 +1200
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-22 13:45 +0100
Re: rational numbers Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2021-09-24 21:37 +1200
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-22 15:29 +0300
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-23 07:26 +0000
Re: rational numbers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-19 21:54 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-20 00:31 +0100
Re: rational numbers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-20 08:33 +0200
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-20 16:11 +0100
Re: rational numbers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-20 18:08 +0200
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-20 18:39 +0100
Re: rational numbers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-20 19:49 +0200
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-20 19:04 +0100
Re: rational numbers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-20 21:35 +0200
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-20 21:38 +0100
Re: rational numbers Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2021-09-21 10:28 +1200
Re: rational numbers Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2021-09-21 09:08 +0200
Re: rational numbers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-21 09:39 +0200
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-21 11:12 +0100
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-21 15:45 +0300
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-21 14:37 +0100
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-21 17:09 +0300
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-21 16:26 +0100
Re: rational numbers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-21 18:04 +0200
Re: rational numbers Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-09-21 11:51 -0700
Re: rational numbers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-22 11:09 +0200
Re: rational numbers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-21 15:38 +0000
Re: rational numbers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-21 15:36 +0000
Re: rational numbers HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com - 2021-09-21 15:49 +0000
Re: rational numbers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-21 16:21 +0000
Re: rational numbers HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com - 2021-09-22 09:21 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-21 17:45 +0100
Re: rational numbers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-21 17:02 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-21 18:16 +0100
Re: rational numbers Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-09-21 11:53 -0700
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-21 20:48 +0100
Re: rational numbers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-21 20:23 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-21 23:29 +0100
Re: rational numbers Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-09-21 13:47 -0700
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-21 20:11 +0300
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-21 18:33 +0100
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-21 20:43 +0300
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-21 18:59 +0100
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-21 21:20 +0300
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-21 20:32 +0100
Re: rational numbers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-21 20:24 +0000
Re: rational numbers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-21 18:52 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2021-09-21 18:34 +0200
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-21 01:16 +0300
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-21 00:39 +0100
Re: rational numbers Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-09-22 23:45 +0200
Re: rational numbers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-22 23:51 +0200
Re: rational numbers Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-09-23 18:42 +0200
Re: rational numbers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-23 21:52 +0200
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-23 00:17 +0100
Re: rational numbers Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-23 02:03 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-23 11:18 +0100
Re: rational numbers HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com - 2021-09-23 10:26 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-23 12:21 +0100
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-23 12:40 +0100
Re: rational numbers Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-23 08:05 -0400
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-23 15:02 +0100
Re: rational numbers Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2021-09-24 08:48 +1200
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-23 23:05 +0100
Re: rational numbers Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-23 23:47 +0000
Re: rational numbers Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-09-23 16:56 -0700
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-24 01:58 +0100
Re: rational numbers Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-24 01:40 +0000
Re: rational numbers Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-09-23 19:35 -0700
Re: rational numbers "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2021-09-24 09:07 -0700
Re: rational numbers "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2021-09-24 09:21 -0700
Re: rational numbers HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com - 2021-09-23 14:58 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-23 17:02 +0100
Re: rational numbers HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com - 2021-09-23 16:21 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-23 18:31 +0100
Re: rational numbers HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com - 2021-09-24 09:12 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-24 12:10 +0100
Re: rational numbers Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-24 11:23 +0000
Re: rational numbers HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com - 2021-09-24 15:19 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-24 17:25 +0100
Re: rational numbers HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com - 2021-09-25 09:27 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-25 11:07 +0100
Re: rational numbers HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com - 2021-09-25 10:14 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-25 11:53 +0100
Re: rational numbers HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com - 2021-09-25 11:23 +0000
Re: rational numbers Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-25 12:34 +0000
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-25 15:37 +0300
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-25 15:46 +0100
Re: rational numbers HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com - 2021-09-25 15:19 +0000
Re: rational numbers Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-25 17:16 +0000
Re: rational numbers Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2021-09-27 23:51 +0200
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-27 23:41 +0100
Re: rational numbers Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-23 10:26 +0000
Re: rational numbers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-23 14:04 +0000
Re: rational numbers Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-09-23 17:47 +0200
Re: rational numbers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-23 17:07 +0000
Re: rational numbers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-23 17:08 +0000
Re: rational numbers Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-09-23 19:30 +0200
Re: rational numbers Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2021-09-24 10:06 +1200
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-22 05:06 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-22 10:51 +0100
Re: rational numbers HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com - 2021-09-22 10:54 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-22 11:59 +0100
Re: rational numbers HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com - 2021-09-22 11:04 +0000
Re: rational numbers "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2021-09-22 14:17 +0200
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-22 14:32 +0100
Re: rational numbers "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2021-09-22 16:23 +0200
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-22 15:18 +0300
Re: rational numbers "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2021-09-22 16:16 +0200
Re: rational numbers HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com - 2021-09-22 15:15 +0000
Re: rational numbers "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2021-09-22 17:57 +0200
Re: rational numbers HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com - 2021-09-22 16:05 +0000
Re: rational numbers Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-09-22 14:13 -0700
Re: rational numbers HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com - 2021-09-23 09:01 +0000
Re: rational numbers James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-09-23 12:08 -0400
Re: rational numbers Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-09-23 10:55 -0700
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-22 20:46 +0300
Re: rational numbers "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2021-09-22 14:42 -0700
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-23 09:15 +0300
Re: rational numbers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-22 14:04 +0000
Re: rational numbers Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-09-22 07:18 -0700
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-23 07:31 +0000
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-23 11:05 +0300
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-23 08:28 +0000
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-24 00:51 +0300
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-24 04:37 +0000
Re: rational numbers Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-24 07:46 +0000
Re: rational numbers "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2021-09-24 08:59 -0700
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-24 22:49 +0300
Re: rational numbers Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-25 00:55 +0000
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-24 12:17 +0300
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-27 05:25 +0000
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-27 11:37 +0300
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-28 04:49 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-23 11:29 +0100
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-24 04:38 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-24 11:15 +0100
Re: rational numbers Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-24 10:19 +0000
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-27 05:34 +0000
Re: rational numbers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-23 14:07 +0000
Re: rational numbers Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-23 14:50 +0000
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-20 05:20 +0000
Re: rational numbers Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2021-09-24 21:45 +1200
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-25 16:15 +0300
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-27 05:36 +0000
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-27 11:19 +0300
Re: rational numbers Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2021-09-27 21:27 +1300
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-27 15:49 +0300
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-28 04:53 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-28 10:16 +0100
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-29 12:10 +0000
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-29 14:34 +0100
Re: rational numbers Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-29 15:54 +0100
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-28 13:23 +0300
Re: rational numbers Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2021-09-29 10:34 +1300
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-29 12:18 +0300
Re: rational numbers Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2021-09-29 22:46 +1300
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-29 13:07 +0300
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-10-02 22:57 +0300
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-29 12:16 +0000
Re: rational numbers Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-09-29 20:15 +0300
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-30 04:46 +0000
Re: rational numbers Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2021-09-19 11:03 +1200
Re: rational numbers Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-19 10:12 +0000
Re: rational numbers Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2021-09-23 07:38 -0700
Re: rational numbers alessandro volturno <alessandro.volturno@libero.it> - 2021-09-24 09:45 +0200
Re: rational numbers Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-24 07:50 +0000
Re: rational numbers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-24 10:58 +0200
Re: rational numbers Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2021-09-24 02:48 -0700
Page 12 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-29 12:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sj1lei$1r2i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81651 |
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> wrote: >> Suppose that the 'a' object above consists of 2 large strings, and you >> want to write them to 'os' concatenated. > > This is another task. No, it isn't. I just said "custom type" which wants to output its contents. I did not specify what the content exactly is. You seem to be assuming that I was talking about, for example, a data container containing numbers. > If you already have data formatted into strings, > then of course these can be written directly to a file. But for that you > don't need a C++ std::ostream interface, you can write directly into the > file descriptor, or C++ streambuf(). No you can't, if you don't have a reference to the ostream object (or FILE pointer). Sure, you could just call a member function of the class giving it that object, but then you cannot use that in generic code. You would merely be trying to work your way around not overloading operator<<, which does exactly that thing, in a way that allows it to be used in generic code. So my question is, once again: If overloading operator<< for this is such a horrible thing, what exactly is your alternative?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-29 20:15 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <sj2700$i95$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81675 |
29.09.2021 15:16 Juha Nieminen kirjutas:
> Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> wrote:
>>> Suppose that the 'a' object above consists of 2 large strings, and you
>>> want to write them to 'os' concatenated.
>>
>> This is another task.
>
> No, it isn't.
Yes it is. Outputting two strings is another task than formatting *and*
outputting millions of numbers.
> I just said "custom type" which wants to output its contents. I did not
> specify what the content exactly is. You seem to be assuming that I was
> talking about, for example, a data container containing numbers.
Yes, that's the scenario which was in my mind as this is the problematic
one.
>
>> If you already have data formatted into strings,
>> then of course these can be written directly to a file. But for that you
>> don't need a C++ std::ostream interface, you can write directly into the
>> file descriptor, or C++ streambuf().
>
> No you can't, if you don't have a reference to the ostream object (or FILE
> pointer).
In that case you can concatenate them and return as a string to the
point where they need to be used (not necessarily a file).
> Sure, you could just call a member function of the class giving it
> that object, but then you cannot use that in generic code. You would
> merely be trying to work your way around not overloading operator<<,
> which does exactly that thing, in a way that allows it to be used in
> generic code.
>
> So my question is, once again: If overloading operator<< for this
> is such a horrible thing, what exactly is your alternative?
I have nothing against operator<<, it just tends to be slow if
implemented as taught in the books. I believe it was you who stressed
the importance of efficiency in C++.
Here are two examples of operator<< which are potentially faster:
std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, const A& a) {
std::string buff = a.to_string();
os.rdbuf()->sputn(buff.data(), buff.length());
}
std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, const A& a) {
auto streamBuf = os.rdbuf();
const size_t k = 64;
char buff[k];
for (auto x: a.data) {
auto q = std::to_chars(buff, buff+k, x).ptr;
*q++ = ' ';
streamBuf->sputn(buff, q-buff);
}
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-30 04:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sj3ffj$ce7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81678 |
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> wrote: > I have nothing against operator<<, it just tends to be slow if > implemented as taught in the books. I believe it was you who stressed > the importance of efficiency in C++. The thing is that with overloading operator<< (or any other similar solution where you have direct access to the stream object) you can choose how to implement the writing. In a scenario where every custom type is forced to implement some kind of "tostring()" function for output you have no choice, even if outputting in some other way would be more efficient, convenient, or even necessary. In fact, it would be better if that "tostring()" would instead be something like "write_to_stream()" which gets the stream object. That way the custom type can choose how it will write to that stream. If it wants to create a string first, it can. But it can also choose to do something else. Which, incidentally, is exactly what overloading operator<< does. My original objection was to the objection that using << is bad, and there are better ways. I was asking what exactly is this "better way". And I do not consider everything having a "tostring()" method to be better.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-19 11:03 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <iqn9itFb6apU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #81310 |
On 19/09/2021 02:54, Scott Lurndal wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> On 17/09/2021 23:34, Ian Collins wrote: > >>> >>> Maybe a better compiler would help? With clang++ and -O2: >>> >> Or pretty much any version of gcc with -O2, at least according to my >> tests on <https://godbolt.org> >> >> Maybe Scott has unusual options, or an unusual library, or other >> surrounding code that affects the results. > > $ gcc --version > gcc (GCC) 4.8.3 20140911 (Red Hat 4.8.3-7) > Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO > warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. > > It's what I had on the system I was posting from, and the code > was an illustrative example, not from our proprietary production > code. But you still used it to back up an exaggerated claim regarding the performance of std::string! If you are using such an old compiler for production code, you have made a rod for your own back. >> There are plenty of reasons to dislike C++ output streams (for me, it is >> the moronic design decision of stateful formatting flags that are the >> big problem). > > Indeed, and they're completely unreadable. Until you need to stream non-trivial objects, or anything in a template... >> The quality of code generated for a weird mixture of >> C-style and C++-style, for an operation that is always big and slow, is >> not such a concern. > > snprintf makes a single pass over the formatting string. It's a single > function call. > > output string streams (the "C++" way) has multiple function calls and > generates a shitload of code. This is certainly true. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-19 10:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <si72dn$no7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81293 |
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: > But I've got too much on my plate right now. Much of which > is making performance improvements to a large CPU-bound > C++ application; primarily by getting rid of all outputstringstream > crap (replacing with snprintf) and eliminating most trivial > run-time (vs. startup time) uses of std::string. While not super rare, it's nevertheless relatively uncommon to need maximum I/O throughput in most applications that, for example, use this kind of class as discussed in this thread. In the vast majority of situations, even in very CPU-intensive number-crunching applications, the I/O speed is largely irrelevant (because the amount of data to be printed isn't that great, nor requires maximum speed). Even in the cases where one *does* need maximum efficiency in I/O (this would often be some kind of program that handles enormous amounts of input and/or output data, eg. in some kind of server or other similar application, requiring the program to read and/or write gigabytes and gigabytes of data as fast as possible), any experienced C++ programmer will know that std::ostream and dynamically allocated strings will not be appropriate for this, and will use something else. However, even in this case it's not like having the operator<<() there is going to hurt something. If it's not suitable for the task at hand, simply don't use it. There are some situations where having a suitable operator<<() overload for a particular type is very practical and handy. Such as, for example, when using Google Test (which has extensive support for adding additional information to an error message via operator<< overloads.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-23 07:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <chine.bleu-13B09D.07381723092021@reader.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #81271 |
In article <shvf4c$ark$3@gioia.aioe.org>, alessandro volturno <alessandro.volturno@libero.it> wrote: > why not to introduce a way to handle rational numbers inside the C++ > standard or better make it a built in type? I'm working on an extension for erratic numbers, double precision that fills add/subtract loss of signficance with random bits. That will form a basis for happy numbers, sad numbers, and angry numbers, and more generally, emotional numbers. -- :-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @ 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\ Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \ I am an Andrea Doria sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alessandro volturno <alessandro.volturno@libero.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-24 09:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sijvnm$c6r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81464 |
Il 23/09/2021 16:38, Siri Cruise ha scritto: > In article <shvf4c$ark$3@gioia.aioe.org>, > alessandro volturno <alessandro.volturno@libero.it> wrote: > >> why not to introduce a way to handle rational numbers inside the C++ >> standard or better make it a built in type? > > I'm working on an extension for erratic numbers, double precision > that fills add/subtract loss of signficance with random bits. > That will form a basis for happy numbers, sad numbers, and angry > numbers, and more generally, emotional numbers. > I've never heard about erratic or emotional numbers. Is it a joke or a strange application in mathematical field? Could you please give me an example of use, so to make understanding easier? Thank you
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-24 07:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <trf3J.44291$ol1.33096@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #81501 |
I beleive it is joke :P But in math you can define ANY set, that follow rules of ALGEBRA :P group, semigroup, ring, field.... -- 7-77-777 \|/ --- /|\ On 2021-09-24, alessandro volturno <alessandro.volturno@libero.it> wrote: > Il 23/09/2021 16:38, Siri Cruise ha scritto: >> In article <shvf4c$ark$3@gioia.aioe.org>, >> alessandro volturno <alessandro.volturno@libero.it> wrote: >> >>> why not to introduce a way to handle rational numbers inside the C++ >>> standard or better make it a built in type? >> >> I'm working on an extension for erratic numbers, double precision >> that fills add/subtract loss of signficance with random bits. >> That will form a basis for happy numbers, sad numbers, and angry >> numbers, and more generally, emotional numbers. >> > > I've never heard about erratic or emotional numbers. Is it a joke or a > strange application in mathematical field? > > Could you please give me an example of use, so to make understanding easier? > > Thank you -- Evil Sinner!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-24 10:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sik3v7$2av$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81501 |
On 24/09/2021 09:45, alessandro volturno wrote: > Il 23/09/2021 16:38, Siri Cruise ha scritto: >> In article <shvf4c$ark$3@gioia.aioe.org>, >> alessandro volturno <alessandro.volturno@libero.it> wrote: >> >>> why not to introduce a way to handle rational numbers inside the C++ >>> standard or better make it a built in type? >> >> I'm working on an extension for erratic numbers, double precision >> that fills add/subtract loss of signficance with random bits. >> That will form a basis for happy numbers, sad numbers, and angry >> numbers, and more generally, emotional numbers. >> > > I've never heard about erratic or emotional numbers. Is it a joke or a > strange application in mathematical field? > > Could you please give me an example of use, so to make understanding > easier? > It is a joke. There are lucky numbers, perfect numbers, practical numbers, fortunate numbers, untouchable numbers, weird numbers, polite numbers, and extravagant numbers. But no emotional numbers, that I am aware of. These are all integer sequences or subsets, and thus don't need any special new arithmetic. If you want to have other number types that could have C++ classes with operators, you could try Gaussian integers, algebraic numbers, constructable numbers, computable numbers, transfinite numbers, hyperreals, surreals, etc. Or you can support all kinds of constructed algebraic structures. GF(2⁸) is a nice one to play with, and has practical applications (it is the basis for most RAID6 implementations).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-24 02:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <chine.bleu-075060.02480224092021@reader.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #81504 |
In article <sik3v7$2av$1@dont-email.me>, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> I'm working on an extension for erratic numbers, double precision > >> that fills add/subtract loss of signficance with random bits. > >> That will form a basis for happy numbers, sad numbers, and angry > >> numbers, and more generally, emotional numbers. > >> > > > > I've never heard about erratic or emotional numbers. Is it a joke or a > > strange application in mathematical field? > > > > Could you please give me an example of use, so to make understanding > > easier? > > > > It is a joke. There are lucky numbers, perfect numbers, practical > numbers, fortunate numbers, untouchable numbers, weird numbers, polite > numbers, and extravagant numbers. But no emotional numbers, that I am > aware of. I think erratic numbers would be a good lesson. People have the illusion that losing almost all bits in a subtraction does not result in the loss of precision. The CDC Star-100 had something similar and it really peeved off customers. They didm't want to ne reminded that all their displays of real number fractions were meaningless. Introducing random bits instead of zeros when normalising differences would visibly change output on each run for numerically unstable code. -- :-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @ 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\ Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \ I am an Andrea Doria sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web