Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #87753 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-12-08 12:31 +0000 |
| Last post | 2023-01-04 00:22 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 333 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-08 12:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2022-12-08 15:25 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-08 15:48 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-12-08 19:29 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-09 15:52 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-09 12:52 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-09 05:03 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-09 14:15 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 06:59 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2022-12-17 16:53 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 07:32 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-08 07:59 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-09 12:56 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-09 07:57 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-09 17:44 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Andreas Dehmel <blackhole.8.zarquon42@spamgourmet.com> - 2022-12-09 21:01 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-09 20:47 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Andreas Dehmel <blackhole.8.zarquon42@spamgourmet.com> - 2022-12-10 14:48 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-10 21:52 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 00:29 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Andreas Dehmel <blackhole.8.zarquon42@spamgourmet.com> - 2022-12-11 14:37 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 09:35 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-11 16:42 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-09 13:07 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 07:14 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-12 08:54 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 11:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-12 16:11 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 15:59 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-12 17:17 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2022-12-12 22:02 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-12 22:41 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 16:00 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-12-13 02:48 -0500
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 00:03 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-13 14:39 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-13 14:10 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-13 14:59 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 13:07 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-13 08:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Udo Steinbach <trashcan@udoline.de> - 2022-12-14 17:50 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-14 17:13 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-14 20:01 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-14 18:12 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 10:25 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-13 08:32 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 01:11 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-13 14:31 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-13 13:42 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-13 09:42 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-13 10:20 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-13 11:10 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-13 15:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-14 06:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-14 07:36 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 09:43 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-14 12:19 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 16:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 07:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 14:11 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 12:17 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-15 08:53 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-16 21:41 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-17 15:34 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 13:27 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 13:32 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 07:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 07:46 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-19 14:55 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 15:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-19 22:03 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-19 20:38 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-19 22:54 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tony Oliver <guinness.tony@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 16:38 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 19:18 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-20 14:51 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 08:23 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 17:52 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 17:56 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ralf Goertz <me@myprovider.invalid> - 2022-12-21 11:22 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 14:05 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 15:37 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 19:25 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 06:09 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 13:32 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 13:49 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 14:28 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-20 15:49 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 18:33 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-20 09:45 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-20 20:29 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-21 10:26 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 15:40 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-21 15:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-12-21 11:12 -0500
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 17:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-21 17:22 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 16:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-21 16:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-12-21 12:02 -0500
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 17:18 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 10:24 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 06:10 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-21 10:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 11:05 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-21 11:13 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 11:21 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 16:19 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 06:00 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-21 10:32 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 11:11 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-21 13:05 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 15:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-19 16:55 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 18:04 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 10:28 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 19:20 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2022-12-19 22:13 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 22:20 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 22:23 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 06:12 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-19 22:45 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 06:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-20 10:22 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 10:39 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-28 21:09 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-29 20:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-29 13:25 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-31 15:00 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-31 16:20 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-31 14:47 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-31 17:47 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-31 07:58 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Jack Lemmon <invalid@invalid.net> - 2022-12-31 18:03 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-31 14:46 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-03 06:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-01-03 01:49 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-03 10:05 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-03 10:14 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-03 11:04 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-03 15:20 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-04 07:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 23:29 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 23:30 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 01:41 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-04 08:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-04 22:48 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-05 09:14 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-05 16:34 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-06 13:02 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-06 14:31 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-01-05 16:48 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-06 13:18 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-01-06 16:45 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-09 05:17 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-01-09 00:45 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-09 13:26 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-10 05:56 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-01-09 22:48 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-10 11:08 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-01-10 03:28 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-10 16:26 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-01-10 07:48 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-10 09:11 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-10 17:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-10 21:38 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-10 12:48 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-11 05:47 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-11 09:21 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-13 07:51 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-13 10:14 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-13 12:45 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-13 14:08 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2023-01-13 06:18 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-14 07:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-16 11:17 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-24 07:17 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-24 09:35 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-01-24 03:09 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-13 16:08 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-11 13:20 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 23:23 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 23:26 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-04 09:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-04 11:03 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-04 11:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-04 13:09 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-04 15:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 10:49 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 15:57 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 13:32 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 13:52 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 16:20 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 06:12 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 22:31 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 06:41 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-21 11:25 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 11:14 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-21 13:42 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-12-21 20:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-21 14:56 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-22 12:20 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-22 20:43 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-23 10:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-23 19:42 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 19:30 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 09:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-14 12:28 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 16:30 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-14 16:50 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 17:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 20:01 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 08:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-19 09:40 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 12:10 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 14:47 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-19 16:52 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 18:08 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 10:36 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 06:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 01:01 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 10:44 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 10:30 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-20 10:21 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 10:46 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-28 12:48 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 13:38 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-29 20:19 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 05:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 22:05 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-20 10:18 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 10:49 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-20 11:19 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 11:53 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 14:44 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 15:42 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 13:43 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 13:54 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-15 07:11 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 08:39 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-19 05:27 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 15:55 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-20 03:28 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 12:09 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-20 14:45 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-28 20:58 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-29 20:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-20 08:58 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 06:30 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 22:36 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 08:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 01:49 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-04 11:07 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 13:41 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 15:38 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-22 12:32 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-22 16:20 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-22 17:04 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 06:43 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Udo Steinbach <trashcan@udoline.de> - 2022-12-14 18:43 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 20:06 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-14 22:14 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-14 22:26 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-15 10:26 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-15 12:40 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 08:54 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 15:18 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-12 09:38 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-12 16:32 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 08:13 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-13 17:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 11:10 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 09:33 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 14:16 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 08:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 15:20 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-14 11:54 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 09:40 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-14 22:15 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-15 10:34 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-09 13:05 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 07:04 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-28 12:25 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-29 20:27 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 15:25 -0600
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2022-12-10 16:29 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 15:39 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 07:10 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-12 09:49 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 11:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Udo Steinbach <trashcan@udoline.de> - 2022-12-14 20:03 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 20:18 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 09:06 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 15:39 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 07:10 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 13:46 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 07:10 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 18:39 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 11:20 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 16:03 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 14:31 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 16:04 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-13 00:33 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 17:13 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 17:25 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-13 01:47 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 17:48 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 19:47 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 19:51 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 19:53 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 20:08 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-13 11:38 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 13:09 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2022-12-15 22:29 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 18:29 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-14 08:38 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 14:23 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-14 08:36 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 23:25 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2022-12-17 21:01 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 09:15 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 15:48 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 16:06 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 19:11 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 21:09 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 06:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 23:11 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 23:12 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 07:22 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 23:39 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 01:59 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 00:19 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 00:22 -0800
Page 9 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 17 Next page →
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-10 03:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10a9b93c-8dbf-42d7-bbb6-bb801ef295e6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #88474 |
On Tuesday, 10 January 2023 at 13:09:08 UTC+2, Juha Nieminen wrote: > Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> wrote: > >> > And if this post does not convince you, it is probably because it is too > >> > long and too verbose - making it hard to read and understand. > >> > >> You can go fuck yourself as well. > >> > > That is what you consider like not arrogant? > > Responding to mockery with expletives is not arrogance but frustration > and anger. Why you are angry? I thought David was kind of self-ironic. His post (about how shorter text is sometimes easier to understand) can be considered overly verbose indeed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-10 16:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tpk02g$ip23$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88475 |
On 10/01/2023 12:28, Öö Tiib wrote: > On Tuesday, 10 January 2023 at 13:09:08 UTC+2, Juha Nieminen wrote: >> Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> wrote: >>>>> And if this post does not convince you, it is probably because it is too >>>>> long and too verbose - making it hard to read and understand. >>>> >>>> You can go fuck yourself as well. >>>> >>> That is what you consider like not arrogant? >> >> Responding to mockery with expletives is not arrogance but frustration >> and anger. > > Why you are angry? I thought David was kind of self-ironic. His post > (about how shorter text is sometimes easier to understand) can be > considered overly verbose indeed. Exactly. It was not mocking anyone, except perhaps myself. I have a habit of making posts that are too long and verbose, when the point would have been clearer in a much shorter post. It's a bad habit. (And I don't take any offence when someone points it out!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-10 07:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <be035713-e7c4-4d46-872f-0bce62aa32den@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #88479 |
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 5:26:25 PM UTC+2, David Brown wrote: > On 10/01/2023 12:28, Öö Tiib wrote: > > On Tuesday, 10 January 2023 at 13:09:08 UTC+2, Juha Nieminen wrote: > >> Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> wrote: > >>>>> And if this post does not convince you, it is probably because it is too > >>>>> long and too verbose - making it hard to read and understand. > >>>> > >>>> You can go fuck yourself as well. > >>>> > >>> That is what you consider like not arrogant? > >> > >> Responding to mockery with expletives is not arrogance but frustration > >> and anger. > > > > Why you are angry? I thought David was kind of self-ironic. His post > > (about how shorter text is sometimes easier to understand) can be > > considered overly verbose indeed. > Exactly. It was not mocking anyone, except perhaps myself. I have a > habit of making posts that are too long and verbose, when the point > would have been clearer in a much shorter post. It's a bad habit. (And > I don't take any offence when someone points it out!) That applies even to this particular relatively short post. Improved variant: "I have a habit of writing posts. It is a bad habit."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-10 09:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tpj6jq$g83f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88471 |
On 10/01/2023 06:56, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> When you make unsupported and unjustified claims that all of /your/
>> opinions are somehow "uncontroversial fact", then it is entirely
>> appropriate to say you are being arrogant.
>
> There we go again reading between the lines and putting in my mouth words
> I have never said.
Are you now trying to tell us that you haven't claimed your position is
"uncontroversial" ? Seriously?
>
>> I suggest you start by looking at Google's style guide, since that is
>> one of the authorities you have appealed to as though it were proof of
>> your case. In particular, read :
>>
>> <https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#General_Naming_Rules>
>
> The irony. That's exactly one of the things I quoted earlier in this
> thread that what I am saying is quite widely accepted and used in
> coding guidelines out there. It's not something I came up with.
It is not ironic - why do you think I picked the Google style guide? I
read your posts. I don't believe you have made effort to read anyone
else's, or to try to understand them, but I certainly read yours. I
picked this style guide because /you/ have tried to use it as an "appeal
to authority" support, but apparently have not read it yourself (I have)
since it does not support your argument. It supports the opinion of
those that disagree with you.
>
> "Use names that describe the purpose or intent of the object. Do not
> worry about saving horizontal space as it is far more important to make
> your code immediately understandable by a new reader. Minimize the use
> of abbreviations that would likely be unknown to someone outside your
> project (especially acronyms and initialisms). Do not abbreviate by
> deleting letters within a word. As a rule of thumb, an abbreviation
> is probably OK if it's listed in Wikipedia."
Amazing. You can quote /most/ of a paragraph, and yet still manage to
miss the critical next couple of sentences:
"""
Generally speaking, descriptiveness should be proportional to the name's
scope of visibility. For example, n may be a fine name within a 5-line
function, but within the scope of a class, it's likely too vague.
"""
And then in the good example given:
int n = 0; // Clear meaning given limited scope and context
for (const auto& foo : foos) {
and the bad example:
int total_number_of_foo_errors = 0; // Overly verbose given
limited scope and context
for (int foo_index = 0; foo_index < foos.size(); ++foo_index) { //
Use idiomatic `i`
So Google's style guide agrees on the part everyone agrees on (though
you still haven't acknowledged that you understand this). And on the
issue where the majority of people in this thread disagree with you, it
sides with us and against your argument.
I don't see Google as being authoritative here (or anywhere else) - but
their opinions and preferences coincide with those of other guides I
have seen, and most other people who have discussed it. /You/ are the
exception - the only person I know who feels that "foo_index" is a
better choice for a loop index than "i", even in a short loop. You are
welcome to have that opinion - all I ask is that you understand that it
is /only/ an opinion, and that it differs from other opinions.
>
>> And if this post does not convince you, it is probably because it is too
>> long and too verbose - making it hard to read and understand.
>
<snip>
Just go and read the Google style guide section "General Naming Rules".
Read /all/ of it this time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-10 17:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87fscitimf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #88473 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > On 10/01/2023 06:56, Juha Nieminen wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>> When you make unsupported and unjustified claims that all of /your/ >>> opinions are somehow "uncontroversial fact", then it is entirely >>> appropriate to say you are being arrogant. >> There we go again reading between the lines and putting in my mouth words >> I have never said. > > Are you now trying to tell us that you haven't claimed your position > is "uncontroversial" ? Seriously? This has got out of hand! Juha has not claimed that all his opinions are uncontroversial fact. I can state that, in my opinion, P =/= NP, and I can claim that this opinion is uncontroversial, but you'd be wrong to say that I am claiming that this opinion is uncontroversial fact. I suspect you meant that Juha claims that his opinions are uncontroversial as a matter of fact, not that they are "uncontroversial fact". <snip some details of Google's style guide> Yes, Google's opinions on style are much closer to mine. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-10 21:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tpkibv$klja$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88481 |
On 10/01/2023 18:16, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > >> On 10/01/2023 06:56, Juha Nieminen wrote: >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>> When you make unsupported and unjustified claims that all of /your/ >>>> opinions are somehow "uncontroversial fact", then it is entirely >>>> appropriate to say you are being arrogant. >>> There we go again reading between the lines and putting in my mouth words >>> I have never said. >> >> Are you now trying to tell us that you haven't claimed your position >> is "uncontroversial" ? Seriously? > > This has got out of hand! Juha has not claimed that all his opinions > are uncontroversial fact. I can state that, in my opinion, P =/= NP, > and I can claim that this opinion is uncontroversial, but you'd be wrong > to say that I am claiming that this opinion is uncontroversial fact. > > I suspect you meant that Juha claims that his opinions are > uncontroversial as a matter of fact, not that they are "uncontroversial > fact". That is a better way to put it. Facts should be uncontroversial, but opinions can be uncontroversial without being known to be facts. He has certainly said that he feels his opinions are uncontroversial, which is quite odd considering how much controversy there has been in this thread! > > <snip some details of Google's style guide> > Yes, Google's opinions on style are much closer to mine. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-10 12:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tpkiuv$kn50$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88471 |
On 1/9/2023 9:56 PM, Juha Nieminen wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> When you make unsupported and unjustified claims that all of /your/ >> opinions are somehow "uncontroversial fact", then it is entirely >> appropriate to say you are being arrogant. > > There we go again reading between the lines and putting in my mouth words > I have never said. > >> I suggest you start by looking at Google's style guide, since that is >> one of the authorities you have appealed to as though it were proof of >> your case. In particular, read : >> >> <https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#General_Naming_Rules> > > The irony. That's exactly one of the things I quoted earlier in this > thread that what I am saying is quite widely accepted and used in > coding guidelines out there. It's not something I came up with. > > "Use names that describe the purpose or intent of the object. Do not > worry about saving horizontal space as it is far more important to make > your code immediately understandable by a new reader. Minimize the use > of abbreviations that would likely be unknown to someone outside your > project (especially acronyms and initialisms). Do not abbreviate by > deleting letters within a word. As a rule of thumb, an abbreviation > is probably OK if it's listed in Wikipedia." > >> And if this post does not convince you, it is probably because it is too >> long and too verbose - making it hard to read and understand. > > You can go fuck yourself as well. Imvho, David did not deserve that. I have argued with David before and never told him to f off or anything like that. ;^o
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-11 05:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tplih2$1tm9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88483 |
Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>> And if this post does not convince you, it is probably because it is too >>> long and too verbose - making it hard to read and understand. >> >> You can go fuck yourself as well. > > Imvho, David did not deserve that. I have argued with David before and > never told him to f off or anything like that. ;^o What he wrote there sounded like he was mocking me, implying that I am unable to understand posts that are too long. That's what elicited my expletive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-11 09:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tplv2h$de9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88485 |
On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 05:47:16 -0000 (UTC) Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> And if this post does not convince you, it is probably because it is too >>>> long and too verbose - making it hard to read and understand. >>> >>> You can go fuck yourself as well. >> >> Imvho, David did not deserve that. I have argued with David before and >> never told him to f off or anything like that. ;^o > >What he wrote there sounded like he was mocking me, implying that I am >unable to understand posts that are too long. That's what elicited my >expletive. Actually its your standard response when argued into a corner. You've done it multiple times including to me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-13 07:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tpr2ha$2f4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88486 |
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > Actually its your standard response when argued into a corner. You've done it > multiple times including to me. You seem to be just taunting me to repeat the expletives, don't you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-13 10:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tpratv$1r7t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88497 |
On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 07:51:08 -0000 (UTC) Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> Actually its your standard response when argued into a corner. You've done it > >> multiple times including to me. > >You seem to be just taunting me to repeat the expletives, don't you? Please, go ahead and prove my point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-13 12:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tprjp6$99h$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88498 |
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 07:51:08 -0000 (UTC) > Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>> Actually its your standard response when argued into a corner. You've done it >> >>> multiple times including to me. >> >>You seem to be just taunting me to repeat the expletives, don't you? > > Please, go ahead and prove my point. I still find it completely hilarious that all this is the result of me suggesting that full English words be used in identifier names. I have said this several times, and I repeat it: This thread is completely insane. It literally makes no sense. It would make no sense even if it were true that I was somehow arrogantly making the assertion with an air of intellectual superiority, looking down on people as if they were my inferiors. The fact that I didn't do such a thing makes it even more insane.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-13 14:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87h6wuplw0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #88502 |
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes: > I still find it completely hilarious that all this is the result of me > suggesting that full English words be used in identifier names. > > I have said this several times, and I repeat it: This thread is > completely insane. It literally makes no sense. I disagree. A giant corporation with a huge investment in code (Google) disagrees with you, but you won't even consider the possibility that the people saying the very same thing here might have a point. Of course you can disagree, but for some reason you don't even accept that there are alternative opinions that might be worth considering. Also, you cited that every document without quoting the parts that you did not agree which suggest that you have not been discussing the topic in good faith. When viewed like that, the thread does make sense. Good-natured, collegiate discussions tend to fizzle out after a range of opinions have been mulled over. Those where one or more of the parties takes a "there's nothing controversial here, how could anyone disagree with me?" stance will run and run. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-13 06:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5f274ba8-24a5-405b-b02c-5da6aa53572an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #88507 |
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 9:09:02 AM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > [discussions] where one or more of the parties > takes a "there's nothing controversial here, how could anyone disagree > with me?" stance will run and run. > Rather, they'll only run and run if multiple parties take a "how could anyone disagree with me?" stance. Multiple parties that have already said everything they have to say about the topic, and are simply repeating themselves, lest someone keeps being wrong on the internet. It's a little unfair to single out the OP. Daniel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-14 07:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tptlbc$1p44$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88509 |
> On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 9:09:02 AM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> [discussions] where one or more of the parties >> takes a "there's nothing controversial here, how could anyone disagree >> with me?" stance will run and run. There's the reading-between-the-lines again. I write: "Nothing of what I wrote is controversial." You read: "Nothing of what I wrote is controversial, how could anyone disagree with me?" I am not objecting to the disagreements. I am objecting to the repeated confrontational attitude shown by some people who seem to be set on trying to "deconvert" me from this heresy. Some people here seem to have taken this as their hill to die on. (You may accuse me of that very same thing, and you would have a point, but I am the one being on the defensive here.) I also find it funny how much of Google's coding guideline actually says exactly what I have been saying, but because another part says something I disagree with, some people here only take that one part and assert that Google fully disagrees with me. And then accuse me of just taking one part and ignoring the others. I am not ignoring the part of Google's coding guideline I disagree with. I quoted the part that I agree with, to highlight that it's not some kind of unique controversial stance. Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> wrote: > Rather, they'll only run and run if multiple parties take a "how could > anyone disagree with me?" stance. Multiple parties that have already > said everything they have to say about the topic, and are simply repeating > themselves, lest someone keeps being wrong on the internet. It's a > little unfair to single out the OP. I do not disagree that I am also guilty of just going on and on about the same thing here even though the conversation doesn't seem to go anywhere, but I think it's a bit different to present an idea and then defend it against criticism, than it is to present criticism of someone's idea. If someone criticizes the thing I suggested, it's natural to respond to that criticism in defense of the idea.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-16 11:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tq387c$2mhn0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88516 |
On 14/01/2023 08:24, Juha Nieminen wrote: >> On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 9:09:02 AM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> [discussions] where one or more of the parties >>> takes a "there's nothing controversial here, how could anyone disagree >>> with me?" stance will run and run. > > There's the reading-between-the-lines again. > > I write: "Nothing of what I wrote is controversial." > > You read: "Nothing of what I wrote is controversial, how could anyone > disagree with me?" Perhaps you don't know what the word "controversial" actually means? Your written English is much better than most native English speakers', but anyone can make a mistake. If something is "controversial", it means people have different opinions about it - there is a fair amount of disagreement. If something is /not/ controversial, or "uncontroversial", it means that there is /no/ disagreement about it of any relevance. (There's always the odd extremist, such as the c.l.c. member who thinks "#define R return" is a good start to a program.) No one is reading between the lines here - anyone who writes that their own opinion, which differs from others, is "uncontroversial" is either ignorant or arrogant, or has not written what they meant to write. You are not ignorant - and you don't like been seen as arrogant. Perhaps this whole branch of the thread is due to your thinking that "uncontroversial" means "widely held opinion" ? > > I am not objecting to the disagreements. You clearly have been objecting to them! > I am objecting to the repeated > confrontational attitude shown by some people who seem to be set on > trying to "deconvert" me from this heresy. But you expect others to believe /your/ repeated but unsupported claims, veiled accusations, and unveiled profanities? Don't you see any hypocrisy in this? Here's a little thought experiment. Imagine, for a moment, that other people really have found that using "i" as an index variable can make some code easier to read and clearer to understand, compared to using a more descriptive name with full words. For someone with the personal experience to back that up, how do you think your posts appear? You are telling that person they are insane, and that everyone knows without doubt that they are wrong. You are telling them that their experience as a professional developer for decades, is /wrong/. You write with such a determined, uncompromising conviction in your own ideas that you leave no room for variation, opinion, or personal opinion. And then you accuse /others/ of being confrontational. So imagine yourself on the other side of the table for a moment, re-read your own posts, and consider how they look. > Some people here seem to > have taken this as their hill to die on. (You may accuse me of that > very same thing, and you would have a point, but I am the one being > on the defensive here.) You have a /very/ distorted view of this thread. /Very/ distorted. There is only /one/ person in this thread who is fanatical about an idea, and that is /you/. You have expressed an extremist view on identifiers. Everyone else here has simply said that while we all agree on the main principles, opinions and experience in the details will vary by person, project, and circumstance. > > I also find it funny how much of Google's coding guideline actually > says exactly what I have been saying, but because another part says > something I disagree with, some people here only take that one part > and assert that Google fully disagrees with me. And then accuse me > of just taking one part and ignoring the others. Do you /still/ not understand? We all /agree/ with you about the part of Google's guidelines that you quoted. Any serious programmer knows to code for readability, and pick good identifiers that can be understood by other people. Even programmers who never look at other people's code learn that if you write cryptic code with poor identifiers, you won't understand your own code after a few months or years. We all agree on "optimise for readability and understandable code, not for brevity or identifier size". > > I am not ignoring the part of Google's coding guideline I disagree > with. I quoted the part that I agree with, to highlight that it's > not some kind of unique controversial stance. No one has /ever/ suggested that this part of Google's guidelines are particularly controversial, or that you are unusual in agreeing with them - we /all/ agree with them more or less. (People might have different opinions on how much project-specific knowledge should be required by people reading code, but that's details, not principle.) The disagreement is on your stance that /all/ identifiers should be full words and fully descriptive. It is that opinion that is unusual and extreme - it is contrary to Google's guidelines and others that I have seen, contrary to common practice and idiomatic code, and several people here (including me) have said that in their experience, short identifiers (such as loop index "i") often /increase/ readability and code understanding in small scopes. But I have no problem in accepting that /your/ experience might be different and /your/ opinion might be different from mine here - I don't say you are wrong just because you disagree with Google and others here. I really don't understand how this can still be unclear to you. > > Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> wrote: >> Rather, they'll only run and run if multiple parties take a "how could >> anyone disagree with me?" stance. Multiple parties that have already >> said everything they have to say about the topic, and are simply repeating >> themselves, lest someone keeps being wrong on the internet. It's a >> little unfair to single out the OP. > > I do not disagree that I am also guilty of just going on and on about > the same thing here even though the conversation doesn't seem to go > anywhere, but I think it's a bit different to present an idea and > then defend it against criticism, than it is to present criticism > of someone's idea. If someone criticizes the thing I suggested, > it's natural to respond to that criticism in defense of the idea. Feel free to try to defend your opinion. I would like to see your reasoning, or understand what the circumstances are in which you find descriptive identifiers critical even in small and obvious scopes. So far I have seen nothing but repeated assertions, and appeals to code guidelines that disagree with you. But please stick to the controversial issues - /not/ the things we all agree upon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-24 07:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tqo0mh$10jj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88536 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 14/01/2023 08:24, Juha Nieminen wrote: >>> On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 9:09:02 AM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> [discussions] where one or more of the parties >>>> takes a "there's nothing controversial here, how could anyone disagree >>>> with me?" stance will run and run. >> >> There's the reading-between-the-lines again. >> >> I write: "Nothing of what I wrote is controversial." >> >> You read: "Nothing of what I wrote is controversial, how could anyone >> disagree with me?" > > Perhaps you don't know what the word "controversial" actually means? I am using the word "controversial" to mean something outrageous and provocative, something that's likely to cause outrage or offense, something that's disrespectful, insulting, offensive, derogatory, smug, something that's likely to rile people up, something that stirs heavy dispute, something very fringe, extremist and outrageous, or something that goes so blatantly against established fact that it's outright arrogant to state it. In other words, something that stirs controversy and dispute. If you say something like "I think apple pie is better than cherry pie", that's not very controversial. You may disagree with it, but it's not something you would get highly aggressive or outraged about. You could have a reasonable conversation about the merits of that opinion, but certainly you wouldn't go on a warpath trying to convince that person otherwise and make absolutely certain he understands how utterly wrong and arrogant he is for stating such an outrageous obvious falsehood. Certainly you wouldn't start reading between the lines and putting words in his mouth in order to try to discredit his opinion. In other words, it's not a controversial statement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-24 09:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tqo58r$2g05$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88799 |
On 24/01/2023 08:17, Juha Nieminen wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> On 14/01/2023 08:24, Juha Nieminen wrote: >>>> On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 9:09:02 AM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> [discussions] where one or more of the parties >>>>> takes a "there's nothing controversial here, how could anyone disagree >>>>> with me?" stance will run and run. >>> >>> There's the reading-between-the-lines again. >>> >>> I write: "Nothing of what I wrote is controversial." >>> >>> You read: "Nothing of what I wrote is controversial, how could anyone >>> disagree with me?" >> >> Perhaps you don't know what the word "controversial" actually means? > > I am using the word "controversial" to mean something outrageous and > provocative, something that's likely to cause outrage or offense, > something that's disrespectful, insulting, offensive, derogatory, smug, > something that's likely to rile people up, something that stirs heavy > dispute, something very fringe, extremist and outrageous, or something > that goes so blatantly against established fact that it's outright > arrogant to state it. > > In other words, something that stirs controversy and dispute. > > If you say something like "I think apple pie is better than cherry pie", > that's not very controversial. You may disagree with it, but it's not > something you would get highly aggressive or outraged about. You could > have a reasonable conversation about the merits of that opinion, but > certainly you wouldn't go on a warpath trying to convince that person > otherwise and make absolutely certain he understands how utterly wrong > and arrogant he is for stating such an outrageous obvious falsehood. > Certainly you wouldn't start reading between the lines and putting > words in his mouth in order to try to discredit his opinion. In > other words, it's not a controversial statement. Thanks for writing that explanation. It can be difficult to pin down exact meanings of words, and certainly different people use them in different ways, and their strength varies by context. Matters of taste and opinion are not controversial - they are just personal preferences. I would say "controversy" requires one of two things. You can have a passionate disagreement (not necessarily involving outrage or offence, but at least involving a number of people or parties over time). Or you can have at least one side of a disagreement considering their side to be "fact", despite there being clearly significant arguments to the contrary. By definition, if one side of a disagreement says they think it is "uncontroversial", and the other side disagrees with the opinion, then the issue is "controversial". So I think at least some of this discussion actually does come down using the term "controversial" (and "uncontroversial") in a different manner. (There have been other miscommunications, and there's at least one poster who appeared simply to enjoy rocking the boat and making others loose their cool.) I believe, and you'll correct me if I interpret you badly, that what you were intending to say can be paraphrased as saying that you are surprised people get so angry, offensive, insulted and worked-up about a relatively small matter such as identifier naming habits, and that it is ridiculous that people are making such a fuss about it. Unfortunately, that is not what you /actually/ said. Paraphrasing again, what you actually said is that you believe it is a /fact/ that the only way to write good code is to use long, full-word identifiers on every occasion, and anyone who believes anything else is being ridiculous. I hope you can appreciate that no one here is agreeing to that second interpretation. We see it as extremist, and counter-productive - descriptive identifiers are good, but /too/ much of a good thing is usually bad. And while people are welcome to prefer descriptive identifiers in all cases in their own code, they cannot claim that it is always "better" or "clearer". With the first interpretation, you'll see a lot more agreement. It is surprising that a thread on this topic has evoked such passion. It is worth noting, however, that the person that stands out as being a great deal more worked-up is /you/. Perhaps we can put this all to rest by agreeing on a few points? Or if we can't agree on them, at least we can agree on what we disagree on? 1. We all approve of writing code to make it clear, easy to read, and easy to understand. 2. Some code can be written in a way that experienced programmers can jump into the code and quickly understand what is happening. If it is possible to write the code in such a way, then that is a good thing. Other types of code requires significant knowledge of the application or field as a whole, and code should assume that knowledge rather than duplicate it. (For example, it could use niche abbreviations rather than cluttering the code with excessively long identifiers or comments.) 3. Idioms and conventions make code faster and easier to read and understand, when used appropriately. 4. Descriptive names with full words are generally helpful for clarity and understanding what code does. But excessive length makes code harder to read and obscures useful information. 5. Google's style guide section on naming conventions - the whole section - is pretty good for a lot of code. But some code may have different requirements. 6. There is no one "perfect" style that applies everywhere. Clarity should always be a goal, but there can be variations as to what makes code clear.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-24 03:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fe257854-0cf3-430b-8878-4aff834a2dd2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #88799 |
On Tuesday, 24 January 2023 at 07:17:54 UTC, Juha Nieminen wrote: > David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: > > On 14/01/2023 08:24, Juha Nieminen wrote: > >>> On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 9:09:02 AM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >>>> [discussions] where one or more of the parties > >>>> takes a "there's nothing controversial here, how could anyone disagree > >>>> with me?" stance will run and run. > >> > >> There's the reading-between-the-lines again. > >> > >> I write: "Nothing of what I wrote is controversial." > >> > >> You read: "Nothing of what I wrote is controversial, how could anyone > >> disagree with me?" > > > > Perhaps you don't know what the word "controversial" actually means? > I am using the word "controversial" to mean something outrageous and > provocative, something that's likely to cause outrage or offense, > something that's disrespectful, insulting, offensive, derogatory, smug, > something that's likely to rile people up, something that stirs heavy > dispute, something very fringe, extremist and outrageous, or something > that goes so blatantly against established fact that it's outright > arrogant to state it. > > In other words, something that stirs controversy and dispute. > > If you say something like "I think apple pie is better than cherry pie", > that's not very controversial. You may disagree with it, but it's not > something you would get highly aggressive or outraged about. x > Normally if we say that something is "controversial" we mean that it supports the weaker or more stigmatised side in an established public dispute. Sometimes we mean that it is likely to spark such a public dispute. The word is used in a light-hearted way about trivial things, such as putting milk in tea before or after the tea. So apple pie and cherry pie would be another example. It's uncontroversial that clear variable naming should be used. No-one would dispute that. However it is not established that full English language words should always be used. That mathematical convention is to use symbols. In C++, you are restricted to Latin. Though it's not uncommon to see Greek symbols like "theta" or "epsilon" spelt out. And some programming identifiers have a lot in common with mathematical symbols, whilst others do not. Most real world code uses a mixture of single letters, full English words, and abbreviations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-13 16:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tprvm7$c9c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88502 |
On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 12:45:28 -0000 (UTC) Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 07:51:08 -0000 (UTC) >> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >>>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>> Actually its your standard response when argued into a corner. You've done >it >>> >>>> multiple times including to me. >>> >>>You seem to be just taunting me to repeat the expletives, don't you? >> >> Please, go ahead and prove my point. > >I still find it completely hilarious that all this is the result of me >suggesting that full English words be used in identifier names. You expected fawning agreement from everyone, didn't get it, so threw all your toys out of the pram. Your lack of self awareness is impressive btw.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web