Thursday, September 3, 2015

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 22 updates in 4 topics

Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Sep 03 09:16AM

> There's masses of evidence of Jesus Christ
 
I suppose that if you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the "truth".
 
Christian apologists have been keeping repeating that claim (ie. the
"masses of evidence" for Jesus's existence) for some decades now
(especially because of the widespread popularity of skepticism nowadays).
They have been hammering on and on about it, and thus people have
started believing it.
 
None of the presented evidence stands up to scrutiny, though.
 
The earliest extra-biblical source that they love to cite is Josephus...
who was born circa 37 AD, well after Jesus's alleged death. Hardly a
contemporary historian. And even he only mentions Christians existing,
and what they believed. That's compelling evidence that Christians
existed in the first century, not that Jesus existed.
 
All the other extra-biblical sources they love to cite were born
even later than that.
 
As for the New Testament, not a single one of the books has been
demonstrably written by an actual eyewitness. (And even if they had
been written by an alleged "eyewitness", there is no way to tell whether
that person was just fabricating a story, which others then copied and
elaborated on.)
 
There is also a hefty amount of circular reasoning often involved.
It goes like: How do we know that the New Testament is trustworthy?
Because of the thousands of eyewitnesses. And how do we know that there
were thousands of eyewitnesses? Because the New Testament says there
were (and, as we already established, the New Testament is trustworthy.)
 
(And this isn't even going into the fact of how unreliable eyewitness
testimony is.)
 
Did a person exist who the gospel stories are (probably very loosely)
based on? I don't know. But the "masses of evidence" is certainly a
pure lie. No, there are no "masses of evidence". There are only
written allegations from decades and even centuries after the fact.
 
Christians consider honesty one of their core virtues, but man do they
love to lie in order to defend their religion.
 
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Sep 03 05:51AM -0700

On Thursday, 3 September 2015 01:33:04 UTC+3, Mr Flibble wrote:
 
> > You're an idiot. *plonk*
 
> That would be an attack on the person rather than on the argument, a
> logical fallacy, idiot.
 
Any attempt to dispute your bald assertions you handwave away with
bald assertion that those are "unreasonable", "false analogy", "nonsense" etc.
Then you form some negations of opponent sentences and state those.
Finally you repeat your original bald assertion with some insult added.
Do not you see that such simple unproductive behavior does not
pass even Turing test?
 
Such behavior damages the positions of those who agree with you the
most.
Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Sep 03 06:47AM -0700

On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 7:01:34 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
 
> Two different New Testament gospels describe
> the genealogy of Jesus Christ all the way back to
> Adam (the first human).
 
Or rather, The Gospel of Matthew proposes a genealogy back to Abraham; the Gospel of Luke proposes a genealogy back to Adam. The two genealogies are completely different, but that is not important, what was important to the gospel writers was to construct a tradition that Jesus was a descendant of David, consistent with Biblical prophesies about the Messiah. So they started with the prophesies, and the assumption that Jesus was the Messiah, and invented the history. This is well understood.
 
> As Adam never existed Adam's descendants as described in
> the Bible also never existed ergo Jesus Christ never existed.
 
Suppose it became important to two participants in this forum that Mr Flibble was a descendant of Donald Duck? And suppose, having too much time on their hands, and too much to drink, they independently constructed genealogies that traced him back to that esteemed creature? Would it be correct then to conclude that since Donald Duck does not exist, neither does Mr Flibble?
 
Daniel
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 03 05:13PM +0100

On 03/09/2015 13:51, Öö Tiib wrote:
> Finally you repeat your original bald assertion with some insult added.
> Do not you see that such simple unproductive behavior does not
> pass even Turing test?
 
You like to make random (and false) assertions I see.
 
 
> Such behavior damages the positions of those who agree with you the
> most.
 
My position is logically sound.
 
/Flibble
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 03 05:16PM +0100

On 03/09/2015 14:47, Daniel wrote:
>> the genealogy of Jesus Christ all the way back to
>> Adam (the first human).
 
> Or rather, The Gospel of Matthew proposes a genealogy back to Abraham; the Gospel of Luke proposes a genealogy back to Adam. The two genealogies are completely different, but that is not important, what was important to the gospel writers was to construct a tradition that Jesus was a descendant of David, consistent with Biblical prophesies about the Messiah. So they started with the prophesies, and the assumption that Jesus was the Messiah, and invented the history. This is well understood.
 
Yes it is well understood that both David and Jesus never existed or it
is at least to those with an ounce of common sense.
 
 
>> As Adam never existed Adam's descendants as described in
>> the Bible also never existed ergo Jesus Christ never existed.
 
> Suppose it became important to two participants in this forum that Mr Flibble was a descendant of Donald Duck? And suppose, having too much time on their hands, and too much to drink, they independently constructed genealogies that traced him back to that esteemed creature? Would it be correct then to conclude that since Donald Duck does not exist, neither does Mr Flibble?
 
That would be a FICTIONAL VERSION of the REAL Mr Flibble that indeed
does not exist unlike the REAL Mr Flibble.
 
/Flibble
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Sep 03 09:55AM -0700

On Thursday, 3 September 2015 19:13:45 UTC+3, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > Do not you see that such simple unproductive behavior does not
> > pass even Turing test?
 
> You like to make random (and false) assertions I see.
 
Rightbackatcha? Sorry, I attempted just to describe how your way of
discussing looks like to me.

 
> > Such behavior damages the positions of those who agree with you the
> > most.
 
> My position is logically sound.
 
q.e.d.
Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Sep 03 10:57AM -0700

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 12:16:34 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 03/09/2015 14:47, Daniel wrote:
 
> it is well understood that both David and Jesus never existed or it
> is at least to those with an ounce of common sense.
 
It's the evidence that counts, there is some recently discovered archaeological evidence for the existence of David, not totally conclusive. The consensus seems to be that it is probable a king called David existed sometime in 10th century BCE, and that some of the material in the Books of Samuel is historical rather than all legend.
 
> > Suppose it became important to two participants in this forum that Mr Flibble was a descendant of Donald Duck? And suppose, having too much time on their hands, and too much to drink, they independently constructed genealogies that traced him back to that esteemed creature? Would it be correct then to conclude that since Donald Duck does not exist, neither does Mr Flibble?
 
> That would be a FICTIONAL VERSION of the REAL Mr Flibble that indeed
> does not exist unlike the REAL Mr Flibble.
 
And yet there would appear to be more archeological evidence for the existence of David than of Mr Flibble! There appears to be no evidence outside of usenet for the existence of Mr Flibble.
 
Daniel
woodbrian77@gmail.com: Sep 03 11:20AM -0700

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 11:55:23 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
 
> > You like to make random (and false) assertions I see.
 
> Rightbackatcha? Sorry, I attempted just to describe how your way of
> discussing looks like to me.
 
Yeah. Sometimes Flibble makes sense but other times he
rants and yells.
 
 
Brian
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 03 08:51PM +0100

On 03/09/2015 18:57, Daniel wrote:
 
>> it is well understood that both David and Jesus never existed or it
>> is at least to those with an ounce of common sense.
 
> It's the evidence that counts, there is some recently discovered archaeological evidence for the existence of David, not totally conclusive. The consensus seems to be that it is probable a king called David existed sometime in 10th century BCE, and that some of the material in the Books of Samuel is historical rather than all legend.
 
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that David existed, none.
 
 
>> That would be a FICTIONAL VERSION of the REAL Mr Flibble that indeed
>> does not exist unlike the REAL Mr Flibble.
 
> And yet there would appear to be more archeological evidence for the existence of David than of Mr Flibble! There appears to be no evidence outside of usenet for the existence of Mr Flibble.
 
Wrong, see above.
 
/Flibble
Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Sep 03 04:02PM -0700

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 6:33:04 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
 
> That would be an attack on the person rather than on the argument, a
> logical fallacy
 
Precisely. Love the idiot, hate the idiocy.
 
Daniel
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Sep 03 05:00PM

On Thu, 2015-08-27, Stefan Ram wrote:
> What's wrong with the following code? The error is in the
> definition of f, and it's not about style but just about
> straight errors.
 
If it's not about style, why not use a more normal and readable
style?
 
> #include <ostream>
> decltype(auto)f(){int v=2;return(v);}
> int main(){::std::cout<<f()<<'\n';}
 
decltype(auto) f()
{
int v=2;
return v;
}
 
int main()
{
std::cout << f() << '\n';
}
 
/Jorgen
 
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Sep 03 05:04PM

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
 
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> spake the secret code
 
>If it's not about style, why not use a more normal and readable
>style?
 
Becausewhitespacehindersreadabilitywhenitcomestocomputerprograms.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com>: Sep 03 08:04PM +0200

On 03.09.2015 19:00, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>> straight errors.
 
> If it's not about style, why not use a more normal and readable
> style?
 
Training?
 
http://www0.us.ioccc.org/1998/banks.c
 
bartekltg
woodbrian77@gmail.com: Sep 03 11:42AM -0700

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 12:04:34 PM UTC-5, Richard wrote:
 
> >If it's not about style, why not use a more normal and readable
> >style?
 
> Becausewhitespacehindersreadabilitywhenitcomestocomputerprograms.
 
Yeah, the form that Jorgen wrote might be easier for
people who are less experienced to read, but I think
there's something to be said for the original form.
I was influenced toward more compact forms by the
author of the Boost Multi_index library.
 
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.
http://webEbenezer.net
jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr>: Sep 03 04:06PM +0200

Consider this error:
 
./DiskIndex.h:430:65: error: expected ')'

<<__builtin_offsetof(DiskIndex_LeafNode<T>,DiskIndex_LeafNode<T>::BranchCount)
^
./DiskIndex.h:430:24: note: to match this '('

<<__builtin_offsetof(DiskIndex_LeafNode<T>,DiskIndex_LeafNode<T>::BranchCount)
^
 
The code is trying to figure out the offset of "BranchCount" within the
class "DiskIndex_LeafNode" (all this in template form of course).
 
WHAT could be wrong with this?
 
jacob
 
P.S. This was compiling OK some years ago. (gcc-4.4.3) Now I am
compiling with
 
Apple LLVM version 6.1.0 (clang-602.0.53) (based on LLVM 3.6.0svn)
 
 
Thanks in advance folks.
 
P.S. The code of course does NOT use the __builtin directly. It uses
stddef.h offsetof macro that expand to __builtin_offsetof
Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid>: Sep 03 10:32AM -0400

On 9/3/2015 10:06 AM, jacobnavia wrote:
 
> The code is trying to figure out the offset of "BranchCount" within the
> class "DiskIndex_LeafNode" (all this in template form of course).
 
> WHAT could be wrong with this?
 
It is possible you don't need to prepend 'BranchCount' with the name of
the class since you already supply it as the first argument.
 
 
> Thanks in advance folks.
 
> P.S. The code of course does NOT use the __builtin directly. It uses
> stddef.h offsetof macro that expand to __builtin_offsetof
 
V
--
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Sep 03 07:41AM -0700

On Thursday, 3 September 2015 17:06:48 UTC+3, jacobnavia wrote:
 
> Thanks in advance folks.
 
> P.S. The code of course does NOT use the __builtin directly. It uses
> stddef.h offsetof macro that expand to __builtin_offsetof
 
Without seeing minimal example of *your* code that does not
compile it is rather hard to tell what is wrong with it. WHAT
could be wrong with that are ...
 
* that 'DiskIndex_LeafNode<T>' is not completely defined at
the spot of 'offsetof' since definitions have moved during
refactoring.
 
* that 'DiskIndex_LeafNode<T>' is not a standard layout class
for example since that T is not standard layout but is
something else.
 
* your code does contain some odd non-standard construct
instead of 'offsetof(DiskIndex_LeafNode<T>,BranchCount)'
 
* some other thing like that.
 
Hopefully it helps you somehow.
jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr>: Sep 03 04:45PM +0200

Le 03/09/2015 16:32, Victor Bazarov a écrit :
 
> It is possible you don't need to prepend 'BranchCount' with the name of
> the class since you already supply it as the first argument.
 
> V
 
 
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
and
 
THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
and again
 
THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Gosh, I am working on this from this morning 11:00 AM and it is now 16:40.
 
You saved my day. Really.
 
 
Thank you again.
 
jacob
jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr>: Sep 03 04:45PM +0200

Le 03/09/2015 16:32, Victor Bazarov a écrit :
 
> It is possible you don't need to prepend 'BranchCount' with the name of
> the class since you already supply it as the first argument.
 
> V
 
 
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
and
 
THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
and again
 
THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Gosh, I am working on this from this morning 11:00 AM and it is now 16:40.
 
You saved my day. Really.
 
 
Thank you again.
 
jacob
jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr>: Sep 03 04:53PM +0200

Thanks for your answer Mr Tiib. Actually it was the problem that Mr
Bazarov told me: I was repeating the name of the class.
 
I learned a lot today, for instance that this is actually a macro that
will sometimes work and sometimes not, depending on the fact that the
class has or not virtual functions. I was misled by that fact (that
appears when you google a bit) and tried to figure out if any of those
classes had a virtual component. But since this appears in the middle of
lenghty template definition that made me fall into total despair...
 
How could I know if the template expansion would yield a class with non
constant offsets? (i.e. class with virtual fields)?
 
But after some hours I noticed that this was an error in the SYNTAX
(missing ')') so I got some hope again and asked in this forum.
 
Thank you all.
 
jacob
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 03 08:13PM +0200

On 03/09/15 16:53, jacobnavia wrote:
 
> But after some hours I noticed that this was an error in the SYNTAX
> (missing ')') so I got some hope again and asked in this forum.
 
> Thank you all.
 
Sometimes it is easy to try too hard to look for a complex answer to a
problem, when it is actually quite simple. And then when you've got the
answer, you don't know whether to laugh at how easy it is, or cry about
the wasted time. (Been there, done that.)
 
In this case, it is nothing more than the standard C offsetof() macro,
which gcc (and llvm) implements with a builtin function, and you don't
need to give the name of the struct (or class) in the second parameter.
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Sep 03 07:04AM -0700

On Thursday, 3 September 2015 01:26:46 UTC+3, Bo Persson wrote:
 
> You know that one of these "exotic" systems was 16-bit Windows with far
> pointers. A deallocated segment could have its descriptor table entry
> removed, causing a trap if loaded into a segment register.
 
Good point, but that is still hardware from sort of proto-c++ era for
me. People wrote in things like "turbo c++" or "watcom c++" ...
and these were the good ones. The Windows 3.11/95/98/ME line
turned into exotic corpse of dead horse in my eyes at Fall 1996.
 
I was astonished by NT 4.0. It ran on comparable hardware flawlessly
and it was actually an operating system (not a closed source GUI
framework). There was still 2 years left until standardization of C++
at that time.
 
 
> Otherwise agree that we could use a feature test macro, like
> __cpp_traps_invalid_pointers, and put that in a static_assert. Just to
> be sure.
 
Good. Note that my point was generic. Standard committee marks things
"implementation defined" to escape from responsibility to do something
real. For developer it is irrelevant since there are no standard facilities
provided to work around situations where vital optimization on one
platform is fatal error on other platform. At same time (as insult to
injury) all traits handling is done more and more convenient and
concepts and reflection are added and what not. Why I need such
powerful tools when core traits of implementation are unexposed?
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)