- Default values in #define - 3 Updates
- C++ Middleware Writer - 5 Updates
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Aug 19 02:55PM -0700 I tried to do this today, and the compiler balked. Is there a syntax where this idea is legal (line 06 and the [c = "hello"] part)? 01: void myfunc(int value, char* text) 02: { 03: printf("%d %s\n", value, text); 04: } 05: 06: #define abc(a, b, c = "hello") a(b, c) 07: 08: abc(myfunc, 2); Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 19 10:57PM +0100 On 19/08/2016 22:55, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > 06: #define abc(a, b, c = "hello") a(b, c) > 07: > 08: abc(myfunc, 2); Don't use macros. /Flibble |
| bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Aug 19 06:11PM -0400 On 08/19/2016 05:55 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > 08: abc(myfunc, 2); > Best regards, > Rick C. Hodgin https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Stringification.html |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Aug 19 10:07AM +0200 On 18/08/16 23:49, jacobnavia wrote: > lacking some essential pieces, but that is the primates story. Just > animals, like so many others and yet one day, they decided to walk upright. > So that they can see clearly the stars. That is pretty much the scientific viewpoint, except for one part - you imply a reason or purpose in evolution. "They /decided/ to walk upright. So that they can see clearly the stars." That means someone or something /guided/ evolution, by guiding the selection process, other than "natural selection" (where the guidance is a very basic loopback - the selection is for lifeforms that are more likely to pass on their genes or traits to the next generation). There are many ways to have guided evolution, and it is still evolution. Humans guide evolution all the time - we usually call it "selective breeding", or "biology class experiments with fruit flies". Many people believe there is some external force that guided our evolution, moving our line from rats through early primates to humans. Some people are specific - calling it "God" (of whatever religion they want). Others see it as more nebulous - "life", "the universe", "Gia", "Nature", etc. And some think it is aliens. This same force may or may not have been involved in the "getting started" phase of life. But whatever you think here, it is a matter of /faith/, of /belief/ - it is not science. It is not contradictory to science, it simply discusses different questions. The scientific viewpoint on evolution and biology comes from the evidence and facts we have, the experiments that are done, the theories that have been developed, and the predictions that have been validated. It does not /need/ any external guiding force for its explanations - but neither is it in conflict with a guiding force, nor does it disprove one. Belief in a guiding force is only in contradiction to science if it makes claims that are clearly in conflict with the evidence (such as "the world was made in seven days"). And it only becomes science if supporting evidence is found (such as finding Slartibartfast's signature on the mountains of Norway). > acting up and walking upright so that the stars could be more easily > grasped. > Why? Again, you are implying that there was a reason, and a guiding force, driving the direction of evolution towards humanity. That's fine as a believe - just be aware that it /is/ a belief, in the same category as a belief in a Christian God, and not science. > digestion, and the same 20 amino-acids that build our flesh, the > plants, the dogs, the amoeba, everything. Just the SAME 20 building blocks! > Please do not confuse LIFE with the gods we create at our own image. If you consider life on earth as a single huge biological machine of which we are all part, then that's a rational and scientific viewpoint. If you consider it has having played a role in guiding evolution, or that early humanoids learned to walk upright to "grasp at the stars", or that questions of LIFE's conciousness even make sense - then it /is/ a god that you have created in your own image. It is not at all like the Christian idea of "God" - it is far more like "Gaia" or "Mother Nature", or the god(s) of pagan or animist religions. But it is nonetheless an "entity" whose existence you take on faith alone. The science gives you a direction and makes the form, but the final step you describe here is a leap of faith. > And I am more and more fascinated by the growing similarities between > software environments and the maintenance of the genetic code/programs > that organisms use. Me too - there is a great deal in genetics to be fascinated about! > Did you know that some species encrypt their genome? I didn't know that, but it does not shock me. It sounds like a marvellous defence mechanism against viruses. > all. This is a new discovery (the annoations) that has been done > relatively recently and grasped in its full significance only since a > few years. It has been known for some time that some genes are "activated" and some "deactivated", though we have recently learned more about some of the different mechanisms for this. > Since those annotations are transmitted from mother to child, it is a > new kind of inheritance: the commentaries. We are also learning more and more about how genetic information is transmitted, and especially about transgenetic information and traits. There is a lot more to learn about genetics and molecular biology - it is an exciting field. |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Aug 19 05:21AM -0700 On Friday, 19 August 2016 11:07:26 UTC+3, David Brown wrote: > than "natural selection" (where the guidance is a very basic loopback - > the selection is for lifeforms that are more likely to pass on their > genes or traits to the next generation). Higher animals generally breed them themselves and intriguing imagination of opposite sex and contestants is therefore often more important than having actual qualities or control. So the capability to stare at clouds or stars might romanticize or wisen a person in eyes of others and provide reproductive advantages. ;-) |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Aug 19 02:55PM +0200 On 19/08/16 14:21, Öö Tiib wrote: > having actual qualities or control. So the capability to stare at clouds or > stars might romanticize or wisen a person in eyes of others and provide > reproductive advantages. ;-) Absolutely - but that only comes after the ability to start at clouds has first appeared. "Natural selection" can select for many factors under the general heading of "more likely to pass on genes and traits to the next generation that is then more likely to pass on those genes and traits, and so on". The "survival of the fittest" is, at best, an over-simplification. "Survival of the most attractive" is usually more relevant - and "attractive" could, in some eyes, include the ability to stare at clouds. But if someone writes "they learned to walk upright so that they could stare at the stars", that needs external guidance to make all those steps. Natural selection does not aim for anything more than breeding abilities of the next few generations. (It is more than one generation - hence the evolution of the grandmother - but the feedback drops dramatically over a few steps.) |
| jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr>: Aug 19 03:23PM +0200 Le 19/08/2016 à 14:55, David Brown a écrit : > But if someone writes "they learned to walk upright so that they could > stare at the stars", that needs external guidance to make all those > steps. If fish developed lungs to be able to breathe on land, it was for exploring and thriving in a new ecological niche. Why did fish evolve into land dwellers? How they developed the multiple mutations and software reprogramming needed to breathe air instead of breathing water? Several parallel development threads started synchronously at a given time: o behavioral o physical (lungs, legs for movement in land) The same for intelligence. We just do not know how innovation appears in the development of life. How completely NEW features arise. Does life steers its species into new ecological niches? We do not know. Natural selection exists, of course, and it explains many things. The big problem is that the discovery of new features is, in my humble opinion, unexplained. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 19 06:27PM +0100 On 19/08/2016 14:23, jacobnavia wrote: > Several parallel development threads started synchronously at a given time: > o behavioral > o physical (lungs, legs for movement in land) There doesn't have to be a sudden jump from gills to lungs: evolution is about gradual change so there would be intermediate morphologies. /Flibble |
| 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