Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 4 topics

Vlad from Moscow <vlad.moscow@mail.ru>: Nov 16 03:25PM -0800

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 10:55:06 PM UTC+3, SG wrote:
 
> Though, I can see how some of the downvotes were due to people
> thinking your program invokes undefined behaviour because they weren't
> familiar with that particular aspect of the C language.
 
 
Show your program that returns correct.
SG <s.gesemann@gmail.com>: Nov 17 12:11AM -0800

Am Dienstag, 17. November 2015 00:26:24 UTC+1 schrieb Vlad from Moscow:
> > Enter the key: Correct.
 
> > I don't think so.
 
> Show your program that returns correct.
 
Wow.
 
It's not my program. I just copied the source code from YOUR
Stackoverflow answer and saved it under vlad.c. YOU wrote it.
 
The next time you feel like calling people "unqualified" keep in
mind that YOU are NOT infallible either.
Vlad from Moscow <vlad.moscow@mail.ru>: Nov 17 01:16AM -0800

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 11:12:03 AM UTC+3, SG wrote:
> Stackoverflow answer and saved it under vlad.c. YOU wrote it.
 
> The next time you feel like calling people "unqualified" keep in
> mind that YOU are NOT infallible either.
 
I do not see what code you run.
 
And in any case it does not have any relation to my answer.
 
Are you a prestidigitator?:)
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Nov 17 10:23PM +1300

Vlad from Moscow wrote:
 
>> The next time you feel like calling people "unqualified" keep in
>> mind that YOU are NOT infallible either.
 
> I do not see what code you run.
 
What part of "I just copied the source code from YOUR Stackoverflow
answer" are you having trouble comprehending?
 
--
Ian Collins
Vlad from Moscow <vlad.moscow@mail.ru>: Nov 17 02:15AM -0800

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 12:23:44 PM UTC+3, Ian Collins wrote:
> answer" are you having trouble comprehending?
 
> --
> Ian Collins
 
 
Are you an assistant of the Stackoverflow? Or are you both swindlers?:)
Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl>: Nov 17 12:06PM +0100

Op 17-Nov-15 om 11:15 AM schreef Vlad from Moscow:
 
>> --
>> Ian Collins
 
> Are you an assistant of the Stackoverflow? Or are you both swindlers?:)
 
There is no '*the* Stackoverflow'. We are all individuals, with
individual opinions. The fact that (nearly?) all of us don't agree with
you should give you some hint. And no, it is not that there is a
world-wide conspiracy against you.
 
Why didn't you respond to "What part of "I just copied the source code
from YOUR Stackoverflow answer" are you having trouble comprehending?"
 
Wouter
Vlad from Moscow <vlad.moscow@mail.ru>: Nov 17 03:19AM -0800

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 2:06:41 PM UTC+3, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
 
> Why didn't you respond to "What part of "I just copied the source code
> from YOUR Stackoverflow answer" are you having trouble comprehending?"
 
> Wouter
 
I askedvery clear show the code that was run. What is not clear for you? Or are you another swindler? Can you show the code that as you are saying was run? Or instead of bla...bla...bla.. do you have nothing in your sleeve?
Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl>: Nov 17 01:27PM +0100

Op 17-Nov-15 om 12:19 PM schreef Vlad from Moscow:
>> from YOUR Stackoverflow answer" are you having trouble comprehending?"
 
>> Wouter
 
> I askedvery clear show the code that was run.
 
It is the code in your posting, so you have shown it yourself.
 
> Or are you another swindler?
 
That seems to be your term for everyone who disagrees with you, so I
guess by your definition I am.
 
Wouter
Vlad from Moscow <vlad.moscow@mail.ru>: Nov 17 04:36AM -0800

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 3:28:09 PM UTC+3, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
 
> That seems to be your term for everyone who disagrees with you, so I
> guess by your definition I am.
 
> Wouter
 
It is a common used name of all swindlers that refer to a magic code but do not show it.:)
 
So there is nothing to discuss with swindlers.
SG <s.gesemann@gmail.com>: Nov 17 05:05AM -0800

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 10:16:41 AM UTC+1, Vlad from Moscow wrote:
 
> > The next time you feel like calling people "unqualified" keep in
> > mind that YOU are NOT infallible either.
 
> I do not see what code you run.
 
What prevents you from seeing it? Didn't you understand what I've
said? It's your code. You wrote it. You posted it as part of your
stackoverflow answer and you linked to it from your original post of
this usenet thread. To be specific for future reference: It's the
latest Nov 7, 2015 revision of your SO.com answer.
 
Please try a little harder reading and comprehending what people
write. Also, please avoid jumping to conclusions like conspiracies
against you or everybody being unqualified except you. Don't ignore
the possibility that you messed up.
 
> And in any case it does not have any relation to my answer.
 
I assure you it does. It has the *greatest* possible relation to
your answer because it was part of your answer.
 
Dude, you're embarrassing yourself big time. And every time I thought
it could not get worse, you proved me wrong.
Vlad from Moscow <vlad.moscow@mail.ru>: Nov 17 05:46AM -0800

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 4:05:45 PM UTC+3, SG wrote:
> your answer because it was part of your answer.
 
> Dude, you're embarrassing yourself big time. And every time I thought
> it could not get worse, you proved me wrong.
 
Once again there are only bla...bla..bla..
 
So you can not show the code you run can you?:)
 
My code does not compare string "aprilaaaa". It simply unable to except such a string because its character array declared as having 6 characters.:)
 
So you are indeed a swindler.
 
You substituted the actual meaning of the code with totally wrong conclusions.
 
It was expected when it is clear that such low-qualified programmers and men withot honor have nothing to say.
 
Good luck, swindler.:)
Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com>: Nov 17 08:08AM -0600

On 11/17/2015 7:46 AM, Vlad from Moscow wrote:
>> it could not get worse, you proved me wrong.
 
> Once again there are only bla...bla..bla..
 
> So you can not show the code you run can you?:)
 
Since you appear incapable of finding your own code, here it is.
 
#include <stdio.h>
 
int main( void ){
char key[5]="april",ckey[6];
printf("Enter the key: ");
scanf("%5s",ckey);
 
size_t i = 0;
 
while ( i < sizeof( key ) && key[i] == ckey[i] ) ++i;
 
if( i == sizeof( key ) ){
printf("Correct.");
}
else{
printf("Wrong.");
}
return 0;
}
 
> My code does not compare string "aprilaaaa". It simply unable to except such a string because its character array declared as having 6 characters.:)
 
It accepts "aprilaaaa". It leaves the "aaaa" part in the input stream,
but it still returns "Correct." when the input is "aprilaaaa".
 
Martin Shobe
Vlad from Moscow <vlad.moscow@mail.ru>: Nov 17 06:30AM -0800

вторник, 17 ноября 2015 г., 17:08:57 UTC+3 пользователь Martin Shobe написал:
 
> It accepts "aprilaaaa". It leaves the "aaaa" part in the input stream,
> but it still returns "Correct." when the input is "aprilaaaa".
 
> Martin Shobe
 
 
And what is the problem?! Are you trying to sunstitute the task of the program with your own invented task?
 
The program compares a string of 6 characters with the given character array. And the program is doing it corredctly.
 
Moreover the input stream can contain megabytes of data. It can be even a stream connected to a file.
 
But it is not the task of this program to check all the data are equal to given five characters.:)
 
The task of the program that a string that was read in the character array is equal to another character array.
 
That is all.
 
And the intention of the author of the question is clear enough. He is going to check strings that are not greater than 5 characters and which he reads in a character array of 6 characters.
 
This restriction that input string are not greater than 5 characters is given initially.
 
And I already pointed out in this thread that such a task occurs very othen for example when you need to determine the value of an identification field of an record.
 
So the answer is absolutely correct.
 
The p;roblem is only that
 
1) There are very many programmers in the West who do not know that it is a valid character array initialization in C.
 
2) There are many low-quakified programmers in the West that are unable to understand a task and try to substitute one task for another.
 
3) The fascism thrives in the West. It is so evident that any words are redundant.
 
You could for example suggest to redesign program in your own answer. But 1) it would not be the exact answer to the question and 2) it does not mean that my answer is incorrect.
Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl>: Nov 17 03:31PM +0100

Op 17-Nov-15 om 3:08 PM schreef Martin Shobe:
>> characters.:)
 
> It accepts "aprilaaaa". It leaves the "aaaa" part in the input stream,
> but it still returns "Correct." when the input is "aprilaaaa".
 
@Vlad just in case you don't trust Martin or want to claim that it is a
fascist Linux conspiracy: I got exactly the same result as Martin, on
windows, using the code freshly copied from your very own posting.
 
Wouter
Vlad from Moscow <vlad.moscow@mail.ru>: Nov 17 06:46AM -0800

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 5:32:08 PM UTC+3, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> fascist Linux conspiracy: I got exactly the same result as Martin, on
> windows, using the code freshly copied from your very own posting.
 
> Wouter
 
See my preceding answer.
 
Your interpretation of the output has nothing common with the task of the program.
 
The program correctly reports that the data it read are equal to the given array.
 
It would be a bug if the program reports that data
"april" read from stream buffer aprilaaaa is not equal to "april".
 
So the output just confirms that the program works correctly.
 
You may write your own program that will perform another task. For example it could check that a whole file contains only one word "april". But it will be another program and another task.
Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>: Nov 17 03:03PM

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 04:36:20 -0800 (PST)
> It is a common used name of all swindlers that refer to a magic code
> but do not show it.:)
 
> So there is nothing to discuss with swindlers.
 
Fair enough, but then you have to understand that the reason you have
been (so far only temporarily) banned from stackoverflow is not because
it is "fascist", which is a ridiculous description of a website anyway,
nor because you are Russian, but because you are a complete and utter
dick with personality and anger-management issues.
 
Chris
SG <s.gesemann@gmail.com>: Nov 17 07:12AM -0800

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 3:31:41 PM UTC+1, Vlad from Moscow wrote:
 
> > Martin Shobe
 
> And what is the problem?! Are you trying to sunstitute the task of
> the program with your own invented task?
 
Ok, if you knew all along what we were talking about why did you play
this game of asking me to show the code and then ignoring my answers
several times as if it could not possibly be your version?
 
This reaction of yours seems intellectually dishonest. And that's the
kind of reaction I would expect from someone with an inflated ego who
does not like admit that he was wrong.
 
To be honest, I would prefer a stackoverflow community WITHOUT people
such as you. This has nothing to do with you being Russian. It has
everything to do with you being an intellectually dishonest jerk.
 
Bye.
Vlad from Moscow <vlad.moscow@mail.ru>: Nov 17 07:37AM -0800

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 6:12:51 PM UTC+3, SG wrote:
 
> Ok, if you knew all along what we were talking about why did you play
> this game of asking me to show the code and then ignoring my answers
> several times as if it could not possibly be your version?
 
Because you are even unable to understand what you are running and what you are seeing.
 
 
> such as you. This has nothing to do with you being Russian. It has
> everything to do with you being an intellectually dishonest jerk.
 
> Bye.
 
 
Bravo! A good conclusion!
 
After my absolutely correct answer and my succeding question at SO what to do in such situations when a correct answer is purposely down-voted I am suggested to leave SO because I am "intellectually dishonest jerk".:)
 
You are very clever cookie!:)
 
I only wonder why did you need all this circus performance?
 
You could say in the very beginning that SO is not a place for Russians.:)
 
At least it would be more honestly.:)
 
SO is a place for fascists!
Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl>: Nov 17 04:53PM +0100

Op 17-Nov-15 om 4:37 PM schreef Vlad from Moscow:
 
> You could say in the very beginning that SO is not a place for Russians.:)
 
> At least it would be more honestly.:)
 
> SO is a place for fascists!
 
That being your analysis of the sitution, I don't get why would you want
to be on it?? Do you want to support a facist website?
 
Wouter
Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>: Nov 17 12:26AM

On 16 Nov 2015 21:03:20 GMT
 
> Who can't reason about const? It's not hard: "const Foo* foo" just
> means "I can't use 'foo' to modify anything". True; the name is
> misleading.
 
It doesn't mean that. It means "I can't use foo to modify the object
foo points to". (Or to be more exact, it means "I can't use foo to
modify any non-mutable data of the object foo points to", but I don't
want to confuse the basic point that const does not mean pure,
irrespective of whether there is any mutable object data around.)
"const" does not mean "no side effects".
 
Chris
woodbrian77@gmail.com: Nov 16 05:51PM -0800

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 3:09:28 PM UTC-6, Bo Persson wrote:
> > They know that by scrolling up they will find what they
> > are looking for.
 
> Right, unlike scrolling down which is really hard.
 
There's the consistency with functions that others
have pointed out. It's the consistency that you
don't have to think about what the context is that's
nice.
 
I agree scrolling down isn't difficult so think the
functions can go at the end. Users can jump to the
end of the file easily enough.
 
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Nov 17 01:52PM

>> are looking for.
 
>People using the code have no business looking in your internal data.
>They should be looking at your public methods - so they come first.
 
No, they should be looking at the generated doxygen documentation
for the class, not the header file :-).
Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de>: Nov 17 08:05AM +0100

Am 09.11.15 um 15:58 schrieb Alf P. Steinbach:
> [some code to implement pipelines]
 
Alf you may be interested in Fiberize:
 
https://github.com/fiberize/fiberize
 
a C++ framework for cooperative multitasking.
 
Christian
"Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Nov 17 11:06AM +0100

On 11/17/2015 8:05 AM, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
 
> Alf you may be interested in Fiberize:
 
> https://github.com/fiberize/fiberize
 
> a C++ framework for cooperative multitasking.
 
Interesting. Apparently this uses the Windows terminology "fiber" =
coroutine. But there's also threading, and it's unclear what
relationship the library establishes between threads and coroutines?
 
I would guess the dependency on Boost is for the fiber execution state.
 
Cheers, & thanks,
 
- Alf
 
PS. Oh, by the way, the output driven solution (the thread you replied
in here) is not a multitasking solution. It's just an unnatural solution
based on choosing an impractical top level goal for a procedural
stepwise refinement. But interesting as such, keeping in mind Betrand
Meyer's "real systems have no top".
Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com>: Nov 16 06:50PM -0600

"Breaking all the Eggs in C++" by Scott Meyers
http://scottmeyers.blogspot.com/2015/11/breaking-all-eggs-in-c.html
 
nullptr is growing on me.
 
Lynn
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)