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

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #67073

Re: how/why it is written ... int &numberRef; vs int& numberRef;

Show all headers | View raw

On 16.07.2019 12:45, David Brown wrote:
> On 16/07/2019 11:52, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> 
> I'm snipping most of what you wrote - going through it point for point
> would be, well, pointless.

Yes, nine fallacies in one posting is a lot.

And I only pointed out the top-level ones.


>> But I believe you'll find support in this group, because (I presume)
>> that's the main driver, the group membership.
> 
> You will find that most people in the group ignore the code you post
> when it contains your special language.  The fact that it can be
> compiled by a C++ compiler, assuming one goes to the bother of finding
> and downloading your library, is irrelevant.

The first sentence contains two assertions, both incorrect. The last 
sentence is an assertion that is incorrect. I don't think they qualify 
as fallacies, they're just being wrong about things, having an incorrect 
perception, so it's an improvement. :)


>> With emotions, rational thinking doesn't really apply.
>>
>> However, how you landed on perceiving the group's view as coincident
>> with the vitriol spewed out by Mr. Fibble, is beyond me.
> 
> I don't approve of the hate posts Mr. Flibble makes.  That does not mean
> he is wrong in saying that your code is regularly unhelpful at best, and
> incomprehensible at worst.  But I dislike the way he says it.
> 
>>
>> Ninth fallacy, in the denial area.
>>
> 
> And you wonder why people aren't always appreciative of your posts.

It's not true that people are not usually appreciative of my posts.

Consequently it's not true that I've wondered about that, either.

Since you know that I haven't wondered about this, that last 
incorrectness is a lie.

   ---

That's usually the way it goes: self-contradictions, an avalanche of 
fallacies, topical blindness, pure associations and generalizations, 
followed by plain lies. Then there's a further known pattern of 
development if the discussion about the topic continues, then involving 
more social tools. I suggest we just stop it.

   ---

Since you haven't resorted to those techniques in other areas of 
discussion here, since in fact you're generally one of the most decent 
people in the group and generally know what you're talking about, it 
doesn't matter much, I think. We can simply agree to not discuss this 
topic where you (apparently) go emotionally overboard.


> You are an experienced C++ developer, sitting on a lot of good advice
> and suggestions.  But you choose to make your code posts in an
> unconstructive way - an arrogant "my code is better than the rest of the
> world" way.  You are not alone in this - there are other numpties who
> insist on adding "::std::" to everything, or who post with a layout and
> spacing style that is, to be diplomatic, "unique".

Yes, the matter of style and how that's perceived, that's a valid point.

Still that is only vaguely associated with the usefulness or not of 
restricting oneself to C++ template notation for pointer declarations. 
Which by the way is objectively a constraint on the notation, not a 
different notation. Though it may look different in style.

I know of no other way to use prefix `const` consistently, disregarding 
the to me abhorrent practice of /naming/ every part.


> You should learn that the way to communicate is by using a /common/
> language - not what you personally believe to be the "best" language.
> If that means posting code in a style that you consider sub-par, then
> that is what you do.

But here you go again, with a groundless accusation.

And an apparent quote that isn't a quote.

I'm just mentioning it in order to not let it go by unchallenged as an 
apparent truth, because it's a more personal thing.  Such accusations 
(and the self-contradictions, and the fallacies, and...) mean that you 
not only fail to see things as they are, the usual blindness effect, but 
also see things that don't exist. We should not discuss this further.


> Of course you can then have your own threads extolling the virtues of
> your methods - they are interesting in their own rights, just not
> usually as answers to other people's queries.


Cheers!,

- Alf

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

how/why it is written ... int &numberRef; vs  int& numberRef; G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2019-07-12 15:12 -0700
  Re: how/why it is written ... int &numberRef; vs int& numberRef; Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-07-12 23:16 +0100
    Re: how/why it is written ... int &numberRef; vs int& numberRef; G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2019-07-12 15:21 -0700
  Re: how/why it is written ... int &numberRef; vs int& numberRef; James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-07-12 18:55 -0400
  Re: how/why it is written ... int &numberRef; vs  int& numberRef; Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-07-12 18:55 -0700
  Re: how/why it is written ... int &numberRef; vs int& numberRef; Szyk Cech <szykcech@spoko.pl> - 2019-07-13 05:33 +0200
  Re: how/why it is written ... int &numberRef; vs  int& numberRef; Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2019-07-15 20:33 +0000
    Re: how/why it is written ... int &numberRef; vs  int& numberRef; Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-07-15 23:03 +0100
      Re: how/why it is written ... int &numberRef; vs  int& numberRef; Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-07-15 18:31 -0700
        Re: how/why it is written ... int &numberRef; vs  int& numberRef; Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-07-16 03:04 +0100
          Re: how/why it is written ... int &numberRef; vs  int& numberRef; Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-07-16 05:59 -0700
        Re: how/why it is written ... int &numberRef; vs int& numberRef; "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2019-07-16 05:48 +0200
          Re: how/why it is written ... int &numberRef; vs int& numberRef; David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-07-16 08:47 +0200
            Re: how/why it is written ... int &numberRef; vs int& numberRef; "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2019-07-16 11:52 +0200
              Re: how/why it is written ... int &numberRef; vs int& numberRef; David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-07-16 12:45 +0200
                Re: how/why it is written ... int &numberRef; vs int& numberRef; "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2019-07-17 07:06 +0200
                Re: how/why it is written ... int &numberRef; vs int& numberRef; David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-07-17 08:17 +0200
                Re: how/why it is written ... int &numberRef; vs int& numberRef; scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-07-17 14:03 +0000
          Re: how/why it is written ... int &numberRef; vs int& numberRef; Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-07-16 07:36 -0700
          Re: how/why it is written ... int &numberRef; vs int& numberRef; Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2019-07-17 07:25 +0000
      Re: how/why it is written ... int &numberRef; vs  int& numberRef; Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2019-07-17 07:24 +0000
        Re: how/why it is written ... int &numberRef; vs  int& numberRef; Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-07-17 12:53 +0100

csiph-web