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

Groups > comp.theory > #50373

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, 13 May 2022 11:00:01 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:

> On 5/13/2022 2:04 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 May 2022 20:36:02 -0500
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 5/12/2022 8:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:  
> >>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 19:55:44 -0500
> >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>      
> >>>> On 5/12/2022 7:06 PM, Ben wrote:  
> >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've removed the philosophy group and comp.lang.c as this is
> >>>>> C++. 
> >>>>>> C/C++ people please critique this as the basis for an
> >>>>>> improvement to std::deque.  
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You will get critiques of the code on whatever basis people feel
> >>>>> inclined to comment!  You can't limit the comments to some
> >>>>> particular context.
> >>>>>     
> >>>>>> It seems to have the key functionality of std::deque and
> >>>>>> does it much more simply while saving time and space.  
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It does not have any of the functionality of std::deque.  
> >>>>
> >>>> That is a ridiculously stupid thing to say. It has the key most
> >>>> important functionality of a std:deque
> >>>>
> >>>> Double ended queue
> >>>> deque (usually pronounced like "deck") is an irregular acronym of
> >>>> double-ended queue. Double-ended queues are sequence containers
> >>>> with dynamic sizes that can be expanded or contracted on both
> >>>> ends (either its front or its back).
> >>>>
> >>>> All of the rest of the functionality of std::deque can be added
> >>>> as needed.  
> >>>
> >>> Not with your chosen data structure of two std::vectors it can't
> >>> as it wouldn't meet the complexity  
> >>
> >> It already has the same complexity.
> >>  
> >>> and referential integrity  
> >>
> >> and better referential integrity.  
> > 
> > You are a fucking obtuse idiot, mate.
> > 
> > /Flibble
> >   
> 
> Prove that it doesn't.
 
Prove to me that you are not an idiot by explaining what happens if
vector Left is empty, vector Right is non-empty and you call pop_front?
Hint: as your design currently stands it will crash.

/Flibble

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 17:51 -0500
  Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-12 23:56 +0100
    Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 18:09 -0500
      Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 00:22 +0100
        Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 18:38 -0500
          Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 00:40 +0100
            Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 18:49 -0500
              Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 00:53 +0100
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 19:12 -0500
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 01:58 +0100
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 20:34 -0500
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 08:02 +0100
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque tth <tth@none.invalid> - 2022-05-13 09:10 +0200
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 10:58 -0500
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 17:02 +0100
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 12:44 -0700
  Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-12 19:23 -0400
    Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 18:32 -0500
  Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 01:06 +0100
    Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 19:55 -0500
      Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 02:01 +0100
        Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 20:36 -0500
          Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 08:04 +0100
            Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 11:00 -0500
              Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 17:04 +0100
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 12:05 -0500
      Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 02:38 +0100
        Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 21:37 -0500
          Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-05-13 04:39 +0200
          Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 12:01 +0100
            Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 10:41 -0500
              Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 11:56 -0400
              Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 17:35 +0100
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 12:12 -0500
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 20:04 +0100
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 14:19 -0500

csiph-web