- Read about my Parallel archiver version 3.46 - 1 Update
- cmsg cancel <nm63e9$1aj$6@dont-email.me> - 1 Update
- Swearing in Usenet posts - 5 Updates
- Why not designated initializers in C++? - 3 Updates
- I correct some typos, please read again... - 4 Updates
| Ramine <ramine@1.1>: Jul 13 03:05PM -0400 Hello... My Parallel archiver version 3.46 is here... Read about my Parallel archiver version 3.46: This new version was enhanced more, and here is what i have added: - Now it supports processor groups on windows, so that it can use more than 64 logical processors and it scales well. - It's now NUMA-aware and NUMA efficient. - Now it minimizes efficiently the contention so that it scales well. And i have added a fourth parameter to the constructor, it is the boolean parameter that is processorgroups to support processor groups on windows , if it is set to true it will enable you to scale beyond 64 logical processors and it will be NUMA efficient. I have thoroughly tested and stabilized my parallel archiver for many years, and now i think that it is more stable and efficient, so i think you can be more confident with it. Now when you extract files with ExtractAll() or ExtractFiles() methods using the wrong password, it will report it correctly and DeleteFiles() method will report the files that do not exist. Other than that i have tested it thoroughly and i think it is more stable now and its interface is complete. Notice also that i have not used a global password , but every file can be encrypted with a different password using my Parallel AES encryption with 256 bit keys. So the security level is this: - When you encrypt , the content of the files will be encrypted but the names of the files and directories will not be encrypted, But if you want to encrypt also the names of the files and directories using Parallel AES encryption with 256 bit keys, please compress first into an archive, and after that encrypt all the archive into another archive. - But when you encrypt , you can update the files with the update() method without giving the right password, and you can delete the files without giving the right password, but my level of security is that you can not access the encrypted data without giving the right password. You can download the new updated version 3.46 of my Parallel archiver from: https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/parallel-archiver Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Jul 13 09:05PM +0200 |
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Jul 13 05:53AM -0700 On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 8:41:12 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote: > >> "Bugger, > >I don't think that word is swearing, > You do understand the activity to which it refers, correct? Not all uses of that word connote anal penetration, for example, the excellent Mr Flibble is clearly being a "silly bugger". Some folks here would like to see Brian "bugger off" whenever he feels the need to tell us about the lord. Daniel |
| bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com>: Jul 12 09:52PM +0200 On 12.07.2016 14:41, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>> "Bugger, >> I don't think that word is swearing, > You do understand the activity to which it refers, correct? Not all word referring to sexual activity are swear words. In my dictionary, bugger, verb, 5'th meaning (that one you thinking about) is described as "taboo or _law_". I'm quite sure lawyers aren't allowed to swear in a court.;-) It is one of many meanings. You can use this word as 'pain in a butt'... ... Hmm. I think I'm starting to connect dots... bartekltg |
| Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>: Jul 13 06:01PM +0100 > I don't know of any C++ software with Islamic roots. > I'm with Bach who wrote music to the glory of G-d. I'm with Bach. But I'm also with Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan. The greatest of their genius far exceeds the narrowness of your myopic world view. |
| Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com>: Jul 13 06:55PM +0100 On 13/07/2016 18:01, Gareth Owen wrote: > But I'm also with Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan. Do you also support Sharia Law? |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Jul 13 07:17PM +0100 On 13/07/2016 18:55, Real Troll wrote: > On 13/07/2016 18:01, Gareth Owen wrote: >> But I'm also with Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan. > Do you also support Sharia Law? Only fucktards support Sharia Law. /Flibble |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Jul 13 06:32AM Objective-C++, at least as implemented in clang (and possibly gcc) is a kind of strange mix between Objective-C, C99 and C++14. Forgetting about the first one, and speaking of the latter two, one thing that becomes possible with such a mix is code like this: struct S { int a = 1, b = 2, c = 3; }; const S obj = { .a = 10, .c = 30 }; It might not be immediately apparent that this even compiles, or works properly. But it does. The 'a' member of 'obj' is initialized to 10, the 'c' member is initialized to 30, and the 'b' element to 2. The nice thing about this is that you can give struct elements default values (other than zero). Any element that is not explicitly initialized in the instantiation will get that default value. The above is a strange mix of C++11 and C99, though. The first line uses C++11 features and won't compile as C99. The second line uses C99 features and won't compile as (pure) C++11. In Objective-C++, it compiles and works, though. (It might also compile as C++11, as a non-standard extension, if the compiler is lenient enough. At least clang is not, at least not by default.) The thing is that the above is hard to achieve in pure C++, retaining the convenience. It's difficult to just initialize some members in the instantiation of a struct and leave the rest to their default values. At least it's not possible with a syntax that's so convenient. Is there a reason why C++ couldn't officially support designated initializers? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Jul 13 06:46PM +1200 On 07/13/16 06:32 PM, Juha Nieminen wrote: > The nice thing about this is that you can give struct elements default > values (other than zero). Any element that is not explicitly initialized > in the instantiation will get that default value. <snip> > Is there a reason why C++ couldn't officially support designated > initializers? I've often asked the same question and I have yet to see a plausible explanation! It is damned inconvenient when working with structs from C headers having to write messy C++ wrappers or include C sources in the project just to initialise static objects. Even more so now we have constexpr and C does not... -- Ian |
| Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk>: Jul 13 07:54PM +0200 On 2016-07-13 08:46, Ian Collins wrote: > having to write messy C++ wrappers or include C sources in the project > just to initialise static objects. Even more so now we have constexpr > and C does not... The official explanation (not mine) is that C++ already has constructors for initializing objects. Adding even more ways would make the language even more complicated. Bo Persson |
| Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com>: Jul 12 11:04PM +0100 > On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 1:45:23 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: > Please don't swear here. Talking to Flibble is akin to talking to a brick wall. It's a lost cause. His parents didn't teach him manners and now it's too late for him to learn anything new. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Jul 12 09:03PM +0100 On 12/07/2016 20:57, Real Troll wrote: >> /Flibble > Leave him alone. Allah will punish you for using the f-word on a public > newsgroup where people are seriously trying to solve C++ problems. You can fuck off too mate. /Flibble |
| Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com>: Jul 12 08:57PM +0100 On 12/07/2016 19:44, Mr Flibble wrote: >> I correct some typos, please read again... > You seriously need to get a clue; that or fuck off. > /Flibble Leave him alone. Allah will punish you for using the f-word on a public newsgroup where people are seriously trying to solve C++ problems. |
| Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com>: Jul 12 09:09PM +0100 On 12/07/2016 21:03, Mr Flibble wrote: >> newsgroup where people are seriously trying to solve C++ problems. > You can fuck off too mate. > /Flibble Is that all your brain contains? You are really short of words are you not? If you want to swear then go to Ubuntu newsgroup where they can teach you how to do it most effectively. The F-Word is so common that most people are immune to it these days. Don't you think so. Can you use something more pungent. |
| 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. |
No comments:
Post a Comment