Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #84323 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-05-29 02:59 +0200 |
| Last post | 2022-06-01 18:39 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 157 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 02:59 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-05-29 05:46 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 08:03 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 08:34 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-05-29 01:36 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 10:37 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-05-29 02:09 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 11:16 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-05-29 03:08 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 12:44 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-05-29 16:05 +0300
Re: Wikipedia Freethinker <freethinker@mymail.com> - 2022-05-29 15:19 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 15:27 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2022-05-29 17:26 +0100
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 19:18 +0200
Re: Wikipedia scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-05-29 17:49 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-05-30 00:25 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> - 2022-06-04 13:00 -0400
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 19:19 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 11:48 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-05-30 06:06 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> - 2022-06-04 13:02 -0400
Re: Wikipedia Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2022-05-29 17:18 +0100
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 18:22 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-05-30 06:08 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 04:41 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-05-30 06:06 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-05-30 19:31 +0100
Re: Wikipedia Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-05-30 19:52 +0100
Re: Wikipedia Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-05-31 14:34 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 15:15 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-05-31 18:00 +0100
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 19:06 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-05-31 18:43 +0100
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 19:48 +0200
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-01 09:26 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 09:44 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-06-01 01:47 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 13:53 +0200
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-01 17:05 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 17:06 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-02 04:57 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 07:43 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-02 08:53 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 12:56 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-02 12:46 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 14:56 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-03 04:14 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 06:19 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-03 04:26 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-06-03 14:22 +0100
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 15:34 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 07:24 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-03 14:56 +0000
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 08:06 -0700
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-03 17:30 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 10:37 -0700
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-03 20:33 +0200
Re: Wikipedia scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-06-03 18:59 +0000
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 12:35 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Freethinker <freethinker@mymail.com> - 2022-06-03 23:42 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-06-04 08:10 +0000
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 11:59 -0700
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-04 15:27 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-04 15:31 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-06-03 17:02 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 08:11 -0700
Re: Wikipedia "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 14:23 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 14:58 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-06-04 08:00 -0700
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-02 16:00 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 16:09 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 16:14 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> - 2022-06-04 13:20 -0400
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 19:23 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 04:40 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 14:00 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-02 12:47 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 14:59 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-03 04:17 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 06:20 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-03 04:27 +0000
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-02 16:13 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 10:09 -0700
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-02 22:35 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-03 04:22 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 06:23 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-03 04:28 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 06:35 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-03 05:22 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 07:23 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 22:25 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 07:28 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 22:31 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-03 06:22 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 08:38 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-03 10:14 +0000
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 06:32 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 15:35 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 14:12 -0700
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-03 10:31 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-06-02 19:12 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> - 2022-06-04 13:09 -0400
Re: Wikipedia Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-02 17:54 +0100
Re: Wikipedia Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-06-02 20:40 +0300
Re: Wikipedia Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-02 18:50 +0100
Re: Wikipedia Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-06-03 04:25 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 14:21 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 06:17 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 15:34 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 07:13 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 16:55 +0200
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-01 16:29 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 16:56 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 07:58 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 17:07 +0200
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-01 17:50 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 18:11 +0200
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-01 17:41 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-06-01 17:42 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 09:12 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-06-01 18:35 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 18:36 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-06-01 18:59 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 19:04 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 10:04 -0700
Re: Wikipedia Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-06-07 08:28 -0700
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-01 21:22 +0200
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 13:43 -0700
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-02 10:07 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-06-07 08:21 -0700
Re: Wikipedia "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 07:18 -0700
Re: Wikipedia muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-05-31 18:34 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-05-31 19:37 +0100
Re: Wikipedia muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-05-31 18:42 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-05-31 20:00 +0100
Re: Wikipedia muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-05-31 19:19 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-05-31 20:28 +0100
Re: Wikipedia muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-06-01 18:07 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 20:28 +0200
Re: Wikipedia scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-05-31 19:37 +0000
Re: Wikipedia Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2022-05-31 21:27 +0100
Re: "std::" (was: Wikipedia) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-05-31 21:17 +0100
Re: "std::" (was: Wikipedia) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 06:33 +0200
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-01 09:34 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 05:40 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2022-05-31 17:18 +0100
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 18:25 +0200
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-01 09:38 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 09:46 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 10:16 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 10:21 +0200
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-01 17:13 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 17:15 +0200
Re: Wikipedia David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-06-01 18:12 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 18:18 +0200
Re: Wikipedia Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 18:39 +0200
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 09:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <94a89312-3fde-49f5-81a7-f63b007635f5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #84437 |
On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 11:43:13 AM UTC-4, Manfred wrote: > On 6/1/2022 4:58 PM, daniel...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > They certainly give it their blessing, from the Guidelines > please give exact reference of Just search for "using namespace std" in the Coding Guidelines, there are only eight occurrences. I've given the reasons for my conclusion in my posts, I think it's the only tenable conclusion, I think that, much like some readers of religious texts, you and David are reading into the Guidelines what you want to read. But the discussion is about what the Guidelines say, not about what's right. Best regards, Daniel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Manfred <noname@add.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 18:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t784fm$905$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #84442 |
On 6/1/2022 6:12 PM, daniel...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 11:43:13 AM UTC-4, Manfred wrote: >> On 6/1/2022 4:58 PM, daniel...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> They certainly give it their blessing, from the Guidelines > >> please give exact reference of > > Just search for "using namespace std" in the Coding Guidelines, > there are only eight occurrences. OK, so the example you took is from "SF.10: Avoid dependencies on implicitly #included names", which is a section about a totally different matter than the using directive. Still, the example is justified in the light of SF.6 because: 1) It's an example, not production code. 2) It only consists of a handful of lines of code. 3) It's all about <iostream> and <string> facilities, so it only deals with std names (almost literally). Don't you see the difference with the code that Bonita posted? I've given the reasons for my > conclusion in my posts, I think it's the only tenable conclusion, > I think that, much like some readers of religious texts, you and David > are reading into the Guidelines what you want to read. But the > discussion is about what the Guidelines say, not about what's > right. Sorry, nothing religious about my reading of SF.6, which you snipped. > > Best regards, > Daniel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 18:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t784ir$sti$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84445 |
Am 01.06.2022 um 18:35 schrieb Manfred: > On 6/1/2022 6:12 PM, daniel...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 11:43:13 AM UTC-4, Manfred wrote: >>> On 6/1/2022 4:58 PM, daniel...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>> They certainly give it their blessing, from the Guidelines >> >>> please give exact reference of >> >> Just search for "using namespace std" in the Coding Guidelines, >> there are only eight occurrences. > > OK, so the example you took is from "SF.10: Avoid dependencies on > implicitly #included names", which is a section about a totally > different matter than the using directive. > > Still, the example is justified in the light of SF.6 because: > 1) It's an example, not production code. > 2) It only consists of a handful of lines of code. > 3) It's all about <iostream> and <string> facilities, so it only deals > with std names (almost literally). > > Don't you see the difference with the code that Bonita posted? > > > I've given the reasons for my >> conclusion in my posts, I think it's the only tenable conclusion, >> I think that, much like some readers of religious texts, you and David >> are reading into the Guidelines what you want to read. But the >> discussion is about what the Guidelines say, not about what's >> right. > > Sorry, nothing religious about my reading of SF.6, which you snipped. I think it's ridiculous to discuss tastes as they were objective. I argued on that level myself partitially, but I stopped that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Manfred <noname@add.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 18:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t785u1$q80$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #84446 |
On 6/1/2022 6:36 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 01.06.2022 um 18:35 schrieb Manfred:
>> On 6/1/2022 6:12 PM, daniel...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 11:43:13 AM UTC-4, Manfred wrote:
>>>> On 6/1/2022 4:58 PM, daniel...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> They certainly give it their blessing, from the Guidelines
>>>
>>>> please give exact reference of
>>>
>>> Just search for "using namespace std" in the Coding Guidelines,
>>> there are only eight occurrences.
>>
>> OK, so the example you took is from "SF.10: Avoid dependencies on
>> implicitly #included names", which is a section about a totally
>> different matter than the using directive.
>>
>> Still, the example is justified in the light of SF.6 because:
>> 1) It's an example, not production code.
>> 2) It only consists of a handful of lines of code.
>> 3) It's all about <iostream> and <string> facilities, so it only deals
>> with std names (almost literally).
>>
>> Don't you see the difference with the code that Bonita posted?
>>
>>
>> I've given the reasons for my
>>> conclusion in my posts, I think it's the only tenable conclusion,
>>> I think that, much like some readers of religious texts, you and David
>>> are reading into the Guidelines what you want to read. But the
>>> discussion is about what the Guidelines say, not about what's
>>> right.
>>
>> Sorry, nothing religious about my reading of SF.6, which you snipped.
>
> I think it's ridiculous to discuss tastes as they were objective.
> I argued on that level myself partitially, but I stopped that.
>
You may see this as just a difference in taste, but in fact it is about
code maintainability, readability and, sometimes, even about code
correctness.
So, my arguments have not been about taste.
As a counter example, Alf's habit for
auto main() -> int { ... }
is about taste.
With using namespace std; there's much more to the story - aesthetics is
definitely irrelevant here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 19:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t78678$qi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84448 |
Am 01.06.2022 um 18:59 schrieb Manfred: > On 6/1/2022 6:36 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 01.06.2022 um 18:35 schrieb Manfred: >>> On 6/1/2022 6:12 PM, daniel...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 11:43:13 AM UTC-4, Manfred wrote: >>>>> On 6/1/2022 4:58 PM, daniel...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> They certainly give it their blessing, from the Guidelines >>>> >>>>> please give exact reference of >>>> >>>> Just search for "using namespace std" in the Coding Guidelines, >>>> there are only eight occurrences. >>> >>> OK, so the example you took is from "SF.10: Avoid dependencies on >>> implicitly #included names", which is a section about a totally >>> different matter than the using directive. >>> >>> Still, the example is justified in the light of SF.6 because: >>> 1) It's an example, not production code. >>> 2) It only consists of a handful of lines of code. >>> 3) It's all about <iostream> and <string> facilities, so it only >>> deals with std names (almost literally). >>> >>> Don't you see the difference with the code that Bonita posted? >>> >>> >>> I've given the reasons for my >>>> conclusion in my posts, I think it's the only tenable conclusion, >>>> I think that, much like some readers of religious texts, you and David >>>> are reading into the Guidelines what you want to read. But the >>>> discussion is about what the Guidelines say, not about what's >>>> right. >>> >>> Sorry, nothing religious about my reading of SF.6, which you snipped. >> >> I think it's ridiculous to discuss tastes as they were objective. >> I argued on that level myself partitially, but I stopped that. >> > > You may see this as just a difference in taste, but in fact it is about > code maintainability, readability and, sometimes, even about code > correctness. Not true, I never had such a problem with that and others that sold my code also.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 10:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c3e531f9-d4f4-4841-b6bc-c120eaeb1ea8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #84445 |
On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 12:35:18 PM UTC-4, Manfred wrote: > Sorry, nothing religious about my reading of SF.6, which you snipped. Actually, SF.6 blesses the use of "using namespace std" for foundation libraries (including std) within a local scope (including cpp files.) In your comment, you suggested that SF.6 said something like "If the number of lines in the cpp file is greater than the number of lines in Bonita's wikipedia entry [166, I just counted them], "using namespace std" should be avoided." I'm suggesting that that is an example of you reading what you want into the text. What the text actually says is "A .cpp file is a form of local scope. There is little difference in the opportunities for name clashes in an N-line .cpp containing a using namespace X, an N-line function containing a using namespace X, and M functions each containing a using namespace X with N lines of code in total." I don't think that makes your point, particularly as N is left unspecified. I would add just one thing, when you write "it appears that it is you ... who do not understand ..." you might want to consider the alternative possibility that the "you" in question has read the text carefully, and come to a different conclusion. Just a suggestion :-) Best regards, Daniel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-07 08:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <861qw0ze62.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #84445 |
Manfred <noname@add.invalid> writes: > On 6/1/2022 6:12 PM, daniel...@gmail.com wrote: [...] >> I've given the reasons for my conclusion in my posts, I think it's >> the only tenable conclusion, I think that, much like some readers >> of religious texts, you and David are reading into the Guidelines >> what you want to read. But the discussion is about what the >> Guidelines say, not about what's right. > > Sorry, nothing religious about my reading of SF.6, which you snipped. He didn't say there was, or even suggest it. If you think otherwise you should go back and re-read his statement more carefully.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 21:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t78e9v$aa5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84442 |
On 01/06/2022 18:12, daniel...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 11:43:13 AM UTC-4, Manfred wrote: >> On 6/1/2022 4:58 PM, daniel...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> They certainly give it their blessing, from the Guidelines > >> please give exact reference of > > Just search for "using namespace std" in the Coding Guidelines, > there are only eight occurrences. I've given the reasons for my > conclusion in my posts, I think it's the only tenable conclusion, > I think that, much like some readers of religious texts, you and David > are reading into the Guidelines what you want to read. But the > discussion is about what the Guidelines say, not about what's > right. > I don't believe it is very clear, one way or the other, what the Guidelines have to say on the matter. My reading is that they consider it appropriate in some cases, such as short examples in the text, but state that it is risky - only use it if you understand the risks. They use it only within examples, and the document states explicitly that the examples are not intended to show good quality or realistic code. (This is, of course, entirely reasonable. Amongst other things, examples in such a document must be short and have short line widths - including "std::" before identifiers would work against that.) I'm not keen of file-level "using namespace std;" in my own code. (Indeed, I don't usually have any file-level "using namespace" declarations.) I don't think it is a good idea to import a large and unknown set of identifiers into the global scope. Very few people could claim to know all the identifiers in std:: at the moment - fewer still could claim to know what will be in all future standards. The risk of name conflicts or reader confusion for a small example function might be small, but the risk when you have a larger and more serious program gets high. How people choose to write their own code, is, of course, up to them (or their employer, or project manager). When writing code for public examples or demonstration, however, you need to take more care - and make considered choices based on the target audience. Amongst other things, you need to consider if it is just a throw-away example to make a point, or if it is code someone may copy verbatim. Several people in this thread seem to view the matter as a question of dogma, with absolute rules that must be followed. Others view it as a battle of wills. Some seem to have a religious view, appealing to how they interpret the "prophets" of the language and their "holy writings", the Guidelines. I don't think any of these attitudes are helpful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 13:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ebe138c-9384-4f60-a39e-2fb05af1a9c6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #84453 |
On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 3:22:55 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote: > > I don't believe it is very clear, one way or the other, what the > Guidelines have to say on the matter. Perhaps. Vagueness is good for poetry, but bad for guidelines. > My reading is that they consider > it appropriate in some cases, such as short examples in the text, but > state that it is risky - only use it if you understand the risks. The actual wording is "However, [a name clash] is not particularly likely to lead to a resolution that is not an error and people who use using namespace std are supposed to know about std and about this risk." This sentence suggests to me that the name clashes aren't that big a deal, the compiler will likely catch them. > They use it only within examples, Where else would they use it? > and the document states explicitly that the > examples are not intended to show good quality or realistic code. Examples generally don't show production quality code, they typically omit error handling, among other things, things that get in the way of what the examples are trying to show. But when inexperienced users write code, they often follow examples, Stroustrup and Sutter would know that. If they had wanted to discourage "using namespace std" in production code, surely they would have written the examples without the using namespace directive. And with short examples, that's very easy to do with just a couple of type aliases, e.g. "using std::vector<double>". Best regards, Daniel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-02 10:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t79r4c$621$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84454 |
On 01/06/2022 22:43, daniel...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 3:22:55 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote: >> >> I don't believe it is very clear, one way or the other, what the >> Guidelines have to say on the matter. > > Perhaps. Vagueness is good for poetry, but bad for guidelines. > Agreed. >> My reading is that they consider >> it appropriate in some cases, such as short examples in the text, but >> state that it is risky - only use it if you understand the risks. > > The actual wording is > > "However, [a name clash] is not particularly likely to lead to a resolution > that is not an error and people who use using namespace std are supposed > to know about std and about this risk." > > This sentence suggests to me that the name clashes aren't that big a deal, > the compiler will likely catch them. > That depends entirely on what you are doing with the code. For most of my code, I consider the compiler version, the flags, the libraries, and everything else related to the code generation as fixed and critical, tracked as tightly as the source code I write. I need to be able to take the code from the source code repository on a different computer, a different OS and a different decade, and re-generate a bit-perfect copy of the previous binary. So for my work, it would not be a problem if there were a clash of names - the compiler gives an error (as the guidelines suggest), and I pick a different name for my own identifiers. Most code is not written like that. It is either use once (in which case, finding clashes by compiler error is okay), or it should last as source code into the future and be useable by different people in different systems. For such portable code, your aim must be to avoid clashes or problems in the future too. Sure, whoever gets your code and compiles it later will see the problems as compile-time errors rather than mystical run-time issues, but they now have to make possibly extensive changes to this set of pre-written, pre-tested third-party code. Opening your code to these maintainability and reuseability costs for so little benefit is simply poor coding practice. And to my reading, the Guidelines support that view in that they make it clear that a global scope "using" is a risk, and it should only be used when the programmer is fully aware of and accepts that risk. (But as I say, the Guidelines could be a lot clearer and more explicit there.) >> They use it only within examples, > > Where else would they use it? The examples are not intended as practice to follow in real coding. The authors don't use file-scope "using namespace std;" in any other context, or recommend it in production quality code. Everywhere (as far as I noticed) that std:: namespace symbols are referred to in the text, they are given as fully qualified names. It is simply in examples that they take this shortcut to keep the line lengths down - just as they use function names like "foo" that should never be seen in real-life code. > >> and the document states explicitly that the >> examples are not intended to show good quality or realistic code. > > Examples generally don't show production quality code, they typically > omit error handling, among other things, things that get in the > way of what the examples are trying to show. Exactly - they focus on a particular point under discussion at the time. > > But when inexperienced users write code, they often follow examples, > Stroustrup and Sutter would know that. If they had wanted to discourage > "using namespace std" in production code, surely they would have written the examples > without the using namespace directive. And with short examples, that's > very easy to do with just a couple of type aliases, e.g. "using std::vector<double>". > You are right that they could have done this - and I think they /should/ have done so, precisely because people do often follow examples. (In reality, people usually skip ahead in a document like this until they find the part that interests them - they rarely read the provisos and explanations in the introductory sections.) It is also worth remembering that Stroustrup and Sutter - smart and experienced though they are - are not omniscient. They get things wrong, or make poor choices, just like everyone else. Experts at their level are particularly prone to misjudging how newbies or less skilled programmers might act or think. That is why this whole appeal to authority argument is, IMHO, rather weak - just because these guys use it in some examples in a document does /not/ imply that it is always a good idea or recommended "best practice", regardless of the importance of the document in question. It is also important to remember that C++ is a living language, and the way it is used changes over time. Things that made sense in a set of guidelines or coding standards at one point in time, may not apply later. (And given the breadth of usage of the language, very few guidelines apply well to all usage of the language.) When the guidelines were written, you could expect a general-purpose class to be written as a header file with the interface and a cpp file with the implementation. Now, it might well be written all in one header file, perhaps as a template. File-scope "using namespace" declarations are a big no-no in such headers (the Guidelines are clear there). As modules become established, maybe habits will change again. The ability to fully qualify identifiers, or to pull in identifiers from other scopes, is an important feature of the language. It can be used to make code clearer and simpler, or uglier and harder to read. It can make code more flexible and portable, or limit its usage. This applies both ways - a "using" clause can help or hinder depending on the rest of the code and the way the code will be used. It is important to think about the issue, and make conscious decisions at the time about the right choices in any given case. Habitually writing "using namespace std;" at the top of every cpp file is as bad as banning its usage. And neither can be justified by some interpretation of the Guidelines or any other document - that is just abdication of the responsibility we have to write good code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-07 08:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <865ylczegm.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #84437 |
Manfred <noname@add.invalid> writes:
> On 6/1/2022 4:58 PM, daniel...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 10:29:18 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>> And please don't use silly claims of "mental problems".
>>
>> Agreed
>>
>>> (Yes, I know others have stopped to that level too - that does not
>>> mean it is helpful or appropriate for you to do so also.)
>>
>> It's almost a trademark of this forum, regrettably.
>>
>>> And no, the C++ Core Guidelines do /not/ encourage the use of
>>> "using namespace std;".
>>
>> They certainly give it their blessing, from the Guidelines
>
> Put this way, I find it hard to believe, please give exact
> reference of the example below.
>
>> Example, good
>> #include <iostream>
>> #include <string>
>> using namespace std;
>>
>> void use()
>> {
>> // snipped
>> }
>>
>>> When in doubt, do not use "using namespace std;" at file scope.
>>
>> Actually, the C++ Core Guidelines specifically state that a ".cpp
>> file is a form of local scope", and they appear to have no issue
>> with "using namespace std;" in this context. They mention that
>> "sometimes a namespace is so fundamental and prevalent in a code
>> base, that consistent qualification would be verbose and
>> distracting", and they're clearly referring to "std". They bring
>> up the risk of name clashes, but suggest it is a manageable risk.
>
> You should stop extrapolating your conclusions from pieces of
> sentences extrapolated from context.
I see no basis for this accusation. (Presumably "extrapolated"
near the end of the sentence is meant to be "extracted" or
"removed" or something along those lines.)
> SF.6 (thanks to David for giving this accurate reference) clearly
> states its intent from the very beginning, i.e. its title:
>
> "SF.6: Use using namespace directives for transition, for
> foundation libraries (such as std), or within a local scope
> (only)"
>
> Now, instead of giving their blessing to the use of "using
> namespace std;" (actually, using directives in general, not only
> std), the authors clearly give /constraints/ on where it is
> allowed to use this construct: note the (only) part in that
> title. This is very different from what you say.
>
> In particular, they give a motivation for this directive for the
> following reasons:
>
> 1) "transition". This means help dealing with legacy code, not at
> all an endorsement to use it with new code.
>
> 2) "foundation libraries (such as std)". This is probably the
> more important part: it means that *if* you are writing a
> standard library implementation, then you'd better have "using
> namespace std;" in your .cpp files, since most if not all of what
> you are writing lives within the std namespace(!)
This interpretation is not consistent with other parts of the Core
Guidelines. Moreover it seems unlikely that the Core Guidelines
would go out of its way to address a point that is relevant /only/
to implementors of the C++ standard library; surely they mean to
address a larger audience. A much more likely reading, and also a
better fit to other remarks in the Core Guidelines, is that this
provision refers to foundation libraries (such as std) as being the
namespace opened in a 'using namespace' statement.
> 3) "local scope". This is the handle you are trying to hold so
> tight on to. In fact, it means that in a limited and controlled
> scope, you may use a using directive. This still is in the
> perspective of containing namespaces to avoid clashes, but instead
> of controlling the imported namespace (std), you make the choice
> of controlling your own namespace, by keeping it small. Again,
> this is very different from a generic "blessing" to using
> namespace std; everywhere.
>
> About the note "A .cpp file is a form of local scope": here too
> you should read beyond the first dozen of letters. If you read
> the note in full, you'd see that it is in fact about how large is
> the scope in which you are injecting the std namespace: it
> explains that it is the N-line count that matters, whether it be a
> single function or a combined set of multiple functions "with N
> lines of code in total". It does not contradict, but instead it
> clearly applies to, the choice of having your own namespace small.
I think you're seeing something that isn't there. Nothing in
this paragraph is talking about having your own namespaces be
small, or suggests that N must be small. On the contrary, the
reference to "M functions each containing a using namespace X
with N lines of code in total" suggests that N can be reasonably
large. The point of the paragraph is that the three situations
are equivalent in terms of opportunities for name clashes. Thus
if every function in a .cpp file may reasonably have a 'using
namespace X;' then it is just as reasonable to put that using
statement at the top of the .cpp file instead of in each of the
many functions. Neither X nor N has any constraints stated as
to what they might be.
> Back to the OP, the code that Bonita posted on Wikipedia is
> clearly larger than a handful of lines, and anyway it may be meant
> to be integrated in a larger program. "using namespace std;" is
> still a poor choice, even in the light of the C++ core guidelines.
>
>> You can of course disagree with that judgement, but then you're
>> also disagreeing with Stroustrup and Sutter, not just Bonita.
>
> No, we are not disagreeing with Stroustrup and Sutter. On the
> other hand, it appears that it is you and Bonita who do not
> understand properly what they wrote.
IMO daniel's conclusions show a more objective reading of the
Core Guidelines than your comments above do.
Incidentally, before writing any of this, I found a copy of the
Core Guidelines online, printed out the Introduction and Source
Files sections, and read carefully through all of both sections.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-10 07:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <21b0b0b1-fd63-4749-bf55-9f1a190eaa5fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #84573 |
On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 11:22:04 AM UTC-4, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Manfred <non...@add.invalid> writes:
>
> >
> > 2) "foundation libraries (such as std)". This is probably the
> > more important part: it means that *if* you are writing a
> > standard library implementation, then you'd better have "using
> > namespace std;" in your .cpp files
Why? Wouldn't you rather expect to see
namespace std
{
// ...
}
I checked some gcc .cc files, and that's what they do.
>
> This interpretation is not consistent with other parts of the Core
> Guidelines. Moreover it seems unlikely that the Core Guidelines
> would go out of its way to address a point that is relevant /only/
> to implementors of the C++ standard library; surely they mean to
> address a larger audience.
I agree.
Daniel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 18:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t75n2t$e0r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #84391 |
On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:43:40 +0100 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:06:17 +0200 >Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >> I would never dictate my programming styles to others. >> But Josh does it in a way that you can say, that he >> has real mental problems. >=20 >It isn't a coding style: you are abusing namespaces by actually >going against their intended purpose. "using namespace" should only >ever be used at function local scope or to inject a namespace into >another explict namespace (i.e. *not* global scope). Horseshit. Thats just your particular style and belief, thousands including me would disagree.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 19:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220531193724.00002611@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #84393 |
On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:34:05 -0000 (UTC) muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:43:40 +0100 > Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: > >On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:06:17 +0200 > >Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I would never dictate my programming styles to others. > >> But Josh does it in a way that you can say, that he > >> has real mental problems. > >=20 > >It isn't a coding style: you are abusing namespaces by actually > >going against their intended purpose. "using namespace" should only > >ever be used at function local scope or to inject a namespace into > >another explict namespace (i.e. *not* global scope). > > Horseshit. Thats just your particular style and belief, thousands > including me would disagree. Horseshit? You are simply wrong, it's as simple as that. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 18:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t75nig$kog$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #84394 |
On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:37:24 +0100 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:34:05 -0000 (UTC) >muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > >> On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:43:40 +0100 >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >> >On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:06:17 +0200 >> >Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I would never dictate my programming styles to others. >> >> But Josh does it in a way that you can say, that he >> >> has real mental problems. >> >=20 >> >It isn't a coding style: you are abusing namespaces by actually >> >going against their intended purpose. "using namespace" should only >> >ever be used at function local scope or to inject a namespace into >> >another explict namespace (i.e. *not* global scope). >> >> Horseshit. Thats just your particular style and belief, thousands >> including me would disagree. > >Horseshit? You are simply wrong, it's as simple as that. Whatever. I'll continue to write clear code, you continue to stroke your self important ego.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 20:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220531200041.00002b0e@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #84395 |
On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:42:24 -0000 (UTC) muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:37:24 +0100 > Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: > >On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:34:05 -0000 (UTC) > >muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:43:40 +0100 > >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: > >> >On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:06:17 +0200 > >> >Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I would never dictate my programming styles to others. > >> >> But Josh does it in a way that you can say, that he > >> >> has real mental problems. > >> >=20 > >> >It isn't a coding style: you are abusing namespaces by actually > >> >going against their intended purpose. "using namespace" should > >> >only ever be used at function local scope or to inject a > >> >namespace into another explict namespace (i.e. *not* global > >> >scope). > >> > >> Horseshit. Thats just your particular style and belief, thousands > >> including me would disagree. > > > >Horseshit? You are simply wrong, it's as simple as that. > > Whatever. I'll continue to write clear code, you continue to stroke > your self important ego. Ironically using "using namespace" actually results in code that is less clear. Your wrongness appears to be fractal in nature. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 19:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t75poc$1mbm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #84396 |
On Tue, 31 May 2022 20:00:41 +0100 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:42:24 -0000 (UTC) >muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > >> On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:37:24 +0100 >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >> >On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:34:05 -0000 (UTC) >> >muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:43:40 +0100 >> >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >> >> >On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:06:17 +0200 >> >> >Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> I would never dictate my programming styles to others. >> >> >> But Josh does it in a way that you can say, that he >> >> >> has real mental problems. >> >> >=20 >> >> >It isn't a coding style: you are abusing namespaces by actually >> >> >going against their intended purpose. "using namespace" should >> >> >only ever be used at function local scope or to inject a >> >> >namespace into another explict namespace (i.e. *not* global >> >> >scope). >> >> >> >> Horseshit. Thats just your particular style and belief, thousands >> >> including me would disagree. >> > >> >Horseshit? You are simply wrong, it's as simple as that. >> >> Whatever. I'll continue to write clear code, you continue to stroke >> your self important ego. > >Ironically using "using namespace" actually results in code that >is less clear. Your wrongness appears to be fractal in nature. Right, because having the visual noise of std:: all over the sodding place really makes for clear code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 20:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220531202859.00002f63@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #84397 |
On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:19:40 -0000 (UTC) muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Tue, 31 May 2022 20:00:41 +0100 > Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: > >On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:42:24 -0000 (UTC) > >muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:37:24 +0100 > >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: > >> >On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:34:05 -0000 (UTC) > >> >muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:43:40 +0100 > >> >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: > >> >> >On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:06:17 +0200 > >> >> >Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> I would never dictate my programming styles to others. > >> >> >> But Josh does it in a way that you can say, that he > >> >> >> has real mental problems. > >> >> >=20 > >> >> >It isn't a coding style: you are abusing namespaces by actually > >> >> >going against their intended purpose. "using namespace" should > >> >> >only ever be used at function local scope or to inject a > >> >> >namespace into another explict namespace (i.e. *not* global > >> >> >scope). > >> >> > >> >> Horseshit. Thats just your particular style and belief, > >> >> thousands including me would disagree. > >> > > >> >Horseshit? You are simply wrong, it's as simple as that. > >> > >> Whatever. I'll continue to write clear code, you continue to stroke > >> your self important ego. > > > >Ironically using "using namespace" actually results in code that > >is less clear. Your wrongness appears to be fractal in nature. > > Right, because having the visual noise of std:: all over the sodding > place really makes for clear code. Correct, it does really make for clear code: it makes it obvious that "std::vector" is vector from from the standard library whilst I don't know what the fuck "vector" is. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 18:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t789sg$oe6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #84398 |
On Tue, 31 May 2022 20:28:59 +0100 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:19:40 -0000 (UTC) >muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > >> On Tue, 31 May 2022 20:00:41 +0100 >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >> >On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:42:24 -0000 (UTC) >> >muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:37:24 +0100 >> >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >> >> >On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:34:05 -0000 (UTC) >> >> >muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:43:40 +0100 >> >> >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >> >> >> >On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:06:17 +0200 >> >> >> >Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> I would never dictate my programming styles to others. >> >> >> >> But Josh does it in a way that you can say, that he >> >> >> >> has real mental problems. >> >> >> >=20 >> >> >> >It isn't a coding style: you are abusing namespaces by actually >> >> >> >going against their intended purpose. "using namespace" should >> >> >> >only ever be used at function local scope or to inject a >> >> >> >namespace into another explict namespace (i.e. *not* global >> >> >> >scope). >> >> >> >> >> >> Horseshit. Thats just your particular style and belief, >> >> >> thousands including me would disagree. >> >> > >> >> >Horseshit? You are simply wrong, it's as simple as that. >> >> >> >> Whatever. I'll continue to write clear code, you continue to stroke >> >> your self important ego. >> > >> >Ironically using "using namespace" actually results in code that >> >is less clear. Your wrongness appears to be fractal in nature. >> >> Right, because having the visual noise of std:: all over the sodding >> place really makes for clear code. > >Correct, it does really make for clear code: it makes it obvious that >"std::vector" is vector from from the standard library whilst I don't >know what the fuck "vector" is. Well we already knew you were an idiot. Presumably you can't use any standard C functions because they're not prepended by a namespace. I mean what the fuck is "printf" , right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 20:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t78b3a$4d8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84451 |
Am 01.06.2022 um 20:07 schrieb muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > On Tue, 31 May 2022 20:28:59 +0100 > Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >> On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:19:40 -0000 (UTC) >> muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 31 May 2022 20:00:41 +0100 >>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:42:24 -0000 (UTC) >>>> muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:37:24 +0100 >>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:34:05 -0000 (UTC) >>>>>> muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 31 May 2022 18:43:40 +0100 >>>>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:06:17 +0200 >>>>>>>> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> I would never dictate my programming styles to others. >>>>>>>>> But Josh does it in a way that you can say, that he >>>>>>>>> has real mental problems. >>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>> It isn't a coding style: you are abusing namespaces by actually >>>>>>>> going against their intended purpose. "using namespace" should >>>>>>>> only ever be used at function local scope or to inject a >>>>>>>> namespace into another explict namespace (i.e. *not* global >>>>>>>> scope). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Horseshit. Thats just your particular style and belief, >>>>>>> thousands including me would disagree. >>>>>> >>>>>> Horseshit? You are simply wrong, it's as simple as that. >>>>> >>>>> Whatever. I'll continue to write clear code, you continue to stroke >>>>> your self important ego. >>>> >>>> Ironically using "using namespace" actually results in code that >>>> is less clear. Your wrongness appears to be fractal in nature. >>> >>> Right, because having the visual noise of std:: all over the sodding >>> place really makes for clear code. >> >> Correct, it does really make for clear code: it makes it obvious that >> "std::vector" is vector from from the standard library whilst I don't >> know what the fuck "vector" is. > > Well we already knew you were an idiot. Presumably you can't use any > standard C functions because they're not prepended by a namespace. > I mean what the fuck is "printf" , right? For pedantics there are substitute-headers like <cstddef>. I use them although but I don't think that's necessary because the non-inlined functions are "mangled" in the C-way anyway and I use using namespace std either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web