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


Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #85989

Re: To C or not to C++

From Manfred <noname@add.invalid>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c++
Subject Re: To C or not to C++
Date 2022-08-19 03:10 +0200
Organization Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID <tdmnth$omg$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References (13 earlier) <tdgqk2$17pq$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87h72cc67o.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <tdjd3l$nv2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87zgg2bkwg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <tdljh5$kqv$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw


On 8/18/2022 4:49 PM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 14:49:35 -0700
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes:
>>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 12:56:59 -0700
>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> You're right, it's not correct to say that `char *str = "hello";` "won't
>>>> compile as C++".  A conforming compiler must diagnose it, but after
>>>
>>> Thank you. We got there in the end.
>>>
>>>> I'd say the content of the warning was relevant.  You chose to omit it
>>>> for some reason.
>>>
>>> The assertion was it wouldn't compile, not that it would compile with
>> warnings.
>>>
>>> For an activity such as programming that requires attention to detail a lot
>> of
>>> you here are rather lacking in that ability.
>>
>> You could have helped by providing just a little extra information.  You
>> chose not to.  Consider trying to be helpful rather than just showing off
>> your ability to be obscure.
> 
> A little extra info about what? I was replying to a 1 line assertion another
> poster made.

Which is the textbook definition of taking out of context.

  Not my fault if that confused you.
> 

In fact the post you are referring to is:

   "...Even some completely standard-legal C89 won't compile as C++,
    such as:

     char *str = "hello";

   (which is 100% valid standard C, but not valid C++.)"

Wherein the first line says "it won't compile as C++", and the last line 
says "not valid C++".

A human being would read both, and understand that the message here is 
about legal vs. not-legal C++, rather than questioning if some compiler 
actually accepts the code fragment. This, considering that even the 
first statement (the "won't compile" part) is counterpoised to the first 
part of the same phrase, which clearly says that the matter is about 
"standard-legal" C or C++.

This is for as human beings go. Then, there are the nitpickers.

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


Thread

To C or not to C++ NOSPAM.Alan.Beck@darkrealms.ca (Alan Beck) - 2022-08-08 09:43 +0000
  Re: To C or not to C++ Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-08-08 20:02 +0300
  Re: To C or not to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-09 05:38 +0000
    Re: To C or not to C++ Ralf Fassel <ralfixx@gmx.de> - 2022-08-09 11:07 +0200
      Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-10 02:25 +0200
        Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-09 17:52 -0700
          Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-09 21:39 -0700
            Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-10 07:45 +0000
          Re: To C or not to C++ scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-08-10 19:50 +0000
            Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-10 13:13 -0700
            Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-11 04:29 +0200
        Re: To C or not to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-10 02:41 +0000
        Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-10 07:39 +0000
          Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-10 10:11 -0700
            Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-12 08:23 +0000
              Re: To C or not to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-12 12:12 +0000
                Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-12 14:41 +0000
                Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-12 12:09 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-13 10:28 +0200
                Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-13 09:37 +0000
              Re: To C or not to C++ Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-08-12 15:55 +0300
                Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-12 14:43 +0000
                Re: To C or not to C++ Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-08-12 18:07 +0300
                Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-12 15:14 +0000
                Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-12 12:11 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-13 09:38 +0000
                Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-13 17:56 +0200
                Re: To C or not to C++ Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-08-24 11:32 +0300
                Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-24 11:33 +0100
                Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-24 04:37 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-24 13:31 +0100
                Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-24 14:09 +0000
                Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-24 15:31 +0100
                Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-24 14:38 +0000
                Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-24 15:57 +0100
                Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-24 10:41 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-24 21:48 +0100
                Re: To C or not to C++ "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 07:34 +0200
                Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-25 11:29 +0100
                Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 04:14 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-25 12:36 +0100
                Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 05:16 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-25 17:16 +0100
                Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-25 20:35 +0200
                [OT] Bad CS course, no cookie (Was: To C or not to C++) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-25 21:32 +0100
                Re: [OT] Bad CS course, no cookie (Was: To C or not to C++) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-25 23:16 +0200
                Re: [OT] Bad CS course, no cookie Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-26 00:33 +0100
                Re: [OT] Bad CS course, no cookie David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-26 10:39 +0200
                Re: [OT] Bad CS course, no cookie Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-26 10:57 +0100
                Re: [OT] Bad CS course, no cookie David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-26 12:49 +0200
                Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 19:56 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-26 10:47 +0200
                Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-26 02:48 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-26 13:02 +0200
                Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-26 04:57 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-26 14:55 +0200
                Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-26 06:20 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-27 18:44 +0200
                Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-28 11:30 +0200
                Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 10:06 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 10:32 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 11:36 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-25 20:47 +0200
                Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-26 03:11 +0200
                Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-25 09:21 +0200
                Re: To C or not to C++ scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-08-25 12:58 +0000
                Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 10:23 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-25 20:51 +0200
                Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 12:14 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-08-24 13:56 +0000
                Re: To C or not to C++ Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-08-24 17:18 +0300
                Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-24 14:25 +0000
                Re: To C or not to C++ scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-08-12 16:46 +0000
                Re: To C or not to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-15 06:16 +0000
                Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-15 19:01 +0000
                Re: To C or not to C++ Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2022-08-15 22:22 +0200
                Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-16 08:48 +0200
                Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-16 19:19 +0000
                Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-16 12:56 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-17 18:47 +0000
                Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-17 14:49 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-18 14:49 +0000
                Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-19 03:10 +0200
                Re: To C or not to C++ d thiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> - 2022-08-18 22:12 -0400
                Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-18 20:08 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-19 10:39 +0000
                Re: To C or not to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-17 06:45 +0000
                Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-17 18:48 +0000
                Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-16 19:16 +0000
              Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-12 12:03 -0700
        Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-10 10:13 +0200
          Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-11 04:25 +0200
            Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-11 01:03 -0700
            Re: To C or not to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-11 08:11 +0000
            Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-11 13:53 +0200
              Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-13 04:13 +0200
                Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-13 21:13 +0200
                Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-13 12:29 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-13 13:12 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-14 00:44 +0200
            Re: To C or not to C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-08-12 02:54 -0700
              Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-12 12:12 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-12 16:22 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-08-12 17:49 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-13 03:16 +0200
                Re: To C or not to C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-08-13 09:08 -0700
                Re: To C or not to C++ Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-08-15 14:44 -0700
        Re: To C or not to C++ Ralf Fassel <ralfixx@gmx.de> - 2022-08-10 12:06 +0200
        Re: To C or not to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-11 07:04 +0000
  Re: To C or not to C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-08-09 12:31 +0200
    Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-09 15:59 +0000
    Re: To C or not to C++ Frederick Virchanza Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com> - 2022-08-19 04:09 -0700
  Re: To C or not to C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-08-13 12:17 -0700
  Re: To C or not to C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-08-27 23:15 -0700

csiph-web