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

Groups > sci.physics > #565930 > unrolled thread

Eternal-September Motzarella Aioe Dizum Albasani

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

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

Contents

  Eternal-September  Motzarella  Aioe  Dizum  Albasani Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-03-27 09:21 -0700
    Re: Eternal-September  Motzarella  Aioe  Dizum  Albasani Nobody <nobody@nowhere.net> - 2016-03-27 12:25 -0400
    Eternal-September Motzarella Aioe Dizum Albasani Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-03-27 09:51 -0700
      Usenet, eMail, CraigsList, WikiPedia, etc. allow <PRE>. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-03-27 10:13 -0700
        Re: Usenet, eMail, CraigsList, WikiPedia, etc. allow <PRE>. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 00:55 -0400
          Re: Usenet, eMail, CraigsList, WikiPedia, etc. allow <PRE>. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-28 05:57 +0000
    Re: Eternal-September Motzarella Aioe Dizum Albasani Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 22:04 +0200
    Re: Eternal-September  Motzarella  Aioe  Dizum  Albasani tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-03-27 19:53 -0400
      Re: Eternal-September  Motzarella  Aioe  Dizum  Albasani chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-28 07:23 -0500
    Re: Eternal-September  Motzarella  Aioe  Dizum  Albasani Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-28 01:59 +0200
      Re: Eternal-September  Motzarella  Aioe  Dizum  Albasani chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-28 07:44 -0500
        My code only does what _I_ want, not what "you" want. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-03-28 06:15 -0700
        My code only does what _I_ want, not what "you" want. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-03-28 06:17 -0700
          Re: My code only does what _I_ want, not what "you" want. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-03-28 19:33 +0000
          Re: My code only does what _I_ want, not what "you" want. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-28 23:41 +0200
            How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-03-28 14:52 -0700
              Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Somebody <somebody@nowhere.net> - 2016-03-28 18:01 -0400
              Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-29 00:25 +0200
                Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-28 18:30 -0400
                  Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-29 00:50 +0200
                    Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Somebody <somebody@nowhere.net> - 2016-03-28 18:54 -0400
                    Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-28 21:10 -0400
                Peter Kohlmann has brain damage, I think. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-03-28 15:53 -0700
                  Re: Peter Kohlmann has brain damage, I think. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-03-28 23:32 +0000
            Re: My code only does what _I_ want, not what "you" want. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-29 07:24 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#566334 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:50:22 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> 
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>> 
>>> It is *never* a good idea to use unreferenced variables, and I remove
>>> them always instead of masking the warning
>> 
>> Unfortunately, many "programmers" suffer from a lack of the necessary
>> attention to details.
>> 
> 
> I never accept a compiler warning by just "ignoring" it. The compiler issues 
> warnings for a reason, and I have to be absolutely certain that it is the 
> compile which is wrong. It extremely rarely is. Most of the time there is 
> some problem in the code. In may current project (nearly 200.000 lines of 
> (real) source code (comments not counted) I have exactly one occurence of 
> compiler warning (and then for the current linux GCC only, not for the 
> windows one and also not for the OSX compiler) where I get a warning which 
> could be ignored. Better is to simply rewrite the code in a fashion where 
> the compiler does not warn, because it was ambiguish from the start
> 
> Since I compile my program for linux, windows and OSX (from the same source) 
> I get different kinds of warnings, depending on environment. And I aspire to 
> remove warnings for all of them, not just for the substandard windows 
> compiler

Post the code or it didn't happen.
 
> It takes the Relf idiots of this world to assume that they know better

Relf is a special kind of idiot.
He is one of a kind.

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

#566362 — Re: How could defining a variable, and not using it, be a problem ?

Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>> 
>>> It is *never* a good idea to use unreferenced variables, and I remove
>>> them always instead of masking the warning
>> 
>> Unfortunately, many "programmers" suffer from a lack of the necessary
>> attention to details.
>
> I never accept a compiler warning by just "ignoring" it. The compiler issues 
> warnings for a reason, and I have to be absolutely certain that it is the 
> compile which is wrong. It extremely rarely is. Most of the time there is 
> some problem in the code. In may current project (nearly 200.000 lines of 
> (real) source code (comments not counted) I have exactly one occurence of 
> compiler warning (and then for the current linux GCC only, not for the 
> windows one and also not for the OSX compiler) where I get a warning which 
> could be ignored. Better is to simply rewrite the code in a fashion where 
> the compiler does not warn, because it was ambiguish from the start
>
> Since I compile my program for linux, windows and OSX (from the same source) 
> I get different kinds of warnings, depending on environment. And I aspire to 
> remove warnings for all of them, not just for the substandard windows 
> compiler

I agree wholeheartedly!

-- 
	A man was reading The Canterbury Tales one Saturday morning, when his
wife asked "What have you got there?"  Replied he, "Just my cup and Chaucer."

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

#566333 — Peter Kohlmann has brain damage, I think.

You (PeterKöhlmann) wrote:
> It is *never* a good idea to use unreferenced variables, 
                               ^^^
Again, an "unreferenced variable" ( warning C4101 ) 
is a variable that's declared but NOT USED.

Declaring a variable, or even a bunch of variables,
then not using them, perhaps because you've temporarily
commented out some code, is NEVER a problem.

You've never made any sense Pete, not once,
not in all your decades of posting here.
Honestly, I think you have brain damage.

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

#566342 — Re: Peter Kohlmann has brain damage, I think.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:
> You (PeterKöhlmann) wrote:
>> It is *never* a good idea to use unreferenced variables, 
>                                ^^^
> Again, an "unreferenced variable" ( warning C4101 ) 
> is a variable that's declared but NOT USED.
> 
> Declaring a variable, or even a bunch of variables,
> then not using them, perhaps because you've temporarily
> commented out some code, is NEVER a problem.
> 
> You've never made any sense Pete, not once,
> not in all your decades of posting here.
> Honestly, I think you have brain damage.

anon@lowtide:~/code$ gcc -Wall -o warn1 warn1.c
anon@lowtide:~/code$ gcc -Wall -o warn2 warn2.c
warn2.c: In function ‘blah’:
warn2.c:19:6: warning: unused variable ‘x’ [-Wunused-variable]
  int x=4;
      ^
anon@lowtide:~/code$ ./warn1
x: 0
y: 4
sum: 4
anon@lowtide:~/code$ ./warn2
x: 0
y: 0
sum: 0
anon@lowtide:~/code$ 

anon@lowtide:~/code$ diff -u warn1.c warn2.c
--- warn1.c	2016-03-28 19:25:07.362314096 -0400
+++ warn2.c	2016-03-28 19:25:29.474314499 -0400
@@ -17,6 +17,6 @@
 void blah(void)
 {
  int x=4;
- y=x;
+/* y=x; */
 }
 
anon@lowtide:~/code$ 

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

#566451 — Re: My code only does what _I_ want, not what "you" want.

> Relf wrote:
>>
>> MrChrisV wrote:
>>> Relf claimed that his code was the "finest you'll ever see".
>> 
>> No.  I'd never say such a thing !

Yeah, you did.  Sorry, I don't have the message ID.

>> My code only does what _I_ want, not what "you" want.

Like I care what your horrible code does.
 
>>> "Testing is how you know if the code works or not, not compile-time
>>> warnings."  -  Jeff Relf (the trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel" supports
>>> Relf, on this issue)
>> 
>> Disabling certain warnings is best, I've found.

What was incredible was your eschewing the importance of warnings, and
your assertion that you can "test" for all of the bugs that will cause
problems in corner (and not-so-corner) cases - bugs that could be
easily eradicated by heeding compiler warnings.

At least "Ezekiel" supports you.  The Ezekreep claimed that I was
"ignorant" for calling your statements "stupid".  Guffaw.  Obviously,
all Kreep has against me is his lies.  Who he hopes to fool, with lies
as ridiculous and obvious as the below, I do not know.  He's now a
documented snit!

-- 
'He's the same dimwit who thinks that determining if software works or
not is accomplished through "compile time warnings" and not by
actually testing the software.'  -  trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel", lying
shamelessly

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web