- Oh the blood ... it is my victory - 8 Updates
- Copy-initialization - 13 Updates
- "C++ - Unicode Encoding Conversions with STL Strings and Win32 APIs" - 4 Updates
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Sep 14 09:00PM -0700 On 9/13/2016 3:45 PM, Real Troll wrote: > If Jesus wasn't killed then surely, by the process of deduction and > elimination, we can confidently deduce that there was no body called > Jesus. I do believe that Jesus existed, and that he got beaten into a bloody pulp, and killed. Rick seems to be trying to tell me that He was not killed. I do not think he seems to understand the difference between the body and soul. > Rick has made this into a religion and now he is trying to fool > everybody here. > He should be stoned to death. Na. That's bad. Really bad. Don't they bury you up to your head, then keep throwing rocks until your head has no moment in it for a couple of hours? Rick is very, VERY, VERY annoying, but I do not want this to happen to anybody... Well, perhaps a child molester! Okay, a lot of priests/terrorists should be punished beyond measure. ;^) > him because Chinese don't believe in such stupidity; No wonder they are > prospering while people like Rick are putting us behind them because of > lies and story telling. Yeah... I think Religion is very primitive, and can hold one back. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 15 03:32AM -0700 Jesus Christ was not killed at the cross. He voluntarily chose to die. Romans 6:23 teaches us that those who sin die: http://biblehub.com/kjv/romans/6-23.htm 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Jesus never sinned. He wasn't born in sin. He was born of a virgin by the power of God. He came in to this world for the express purpose of going to the cross to atone for our sin. The entire history and practice of the Jews sacrificing animals to atone for sin was a foreshadowing of the real atonement which would come through Jesus Christ. God had made a way out for sin even before He created the world. It was in His plan from the beginning to save us. Jesus healed the sick, cleansed the lepers, raised the dead. He could've healed Himself. He could've come down from the cross. He could've called upon 10s of thousands of angels to rescue Him and destroy mankind. But He didn't. He stayed on the cross, took on sin, and died to pay the price for sin. Heaven isn't free. Jesus paid the price for us to be there. But He does not charge us to receive salvation. It is His gift to us, because He loves us. It's the greatest example of love imaginable. And it can be yours merely by receiving Him into your heart, in asking Him to forgive you for your sin. Ever sin? Even one time? (Ever told a lie, stolen something, had sex outside of marriage, lusted after someone) ... if the answer is yes, you need a savior. You need Jesus to forgive you so that you won't be judged, so that you will live on and thrive in eternity. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 15 04:30AM -0700 A powerful sermon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdWcqG1coj4 Paraphrased: "Atheist, agnostic, shake your fist at God. Ask God to prove Himself to you. He will." Paraphrased: "What a wonderful thing it is to have fellowship with God." ----- A whole new world of love and inner peace awaits all who come to Jesus Christ and ask forgiveness. It is unlike other things, being far more powerful and complete. It is the life within you made alive again, welling up unto joy unspeakable. Precious and dear. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl>: Sep 15 06:29PM +0200 > Paraphrased: > "Atheist, agnostic, shake your fist at God. > Ask God to prove Himself to you. He will." OK, I shook my fist. Now how long do I have to wait? This smells of an undecidable problem: how can I know that god (no capitals for imaginary beings) will ever prove himself, and what would constitute a proof anyway? Wouter "Objects? No Thanks!" van Ooijen |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 15 09:54AM -0700 On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 12:30:12 PM UTC-4, Wouter van Ooijen wrote: > > "Atheist, agnostic, shake your fist at God. > > Ask God to prove Himself to you. He will." > OK, I shook my fist. Now how long do I have to wait? It shouldn't take longer than 11 hours, 19 minutes. :-) Actually, it's the process. You ask Him to prove Himself to you, and in fact He's already been working on you throughout your life, and in the preceding weeks and months leading up to it. You have already had hints of Him that you are not able to deny, even though you try. And from this time forward, if you are honestly seeking to know if God is real or not, and are not just saying the words without a true heart's intent on knowing whether He's real or not, then you will start to know things. Things you can't explain will begin happening to you. You'll know things you couldn't know about situations, about yourself, about God, and so on. These will be given to you spiritually by God. They won't come through your natural senses, so you'll begin to be aware of new things, and as someone who has not had a sense working before, once it starts turning on it takes them a while to be able to explain what it's like ... but you will just know because it's part of you. > This smells of an undecidable problem: how can I know that god (no > capitals for imaginary beings) will ever prove himself, and what would > constitute a proof anyway? It's one of those things ... you will simply know. How will you just know? It's like looking across a room with lots of furniture in it, and seeing the way across. To a blind man you are aware of information he could never know. But, you just know because your eyes tell you. When God is revealing Himself to you, you will know. It will be personal, and you'll actually say out loud something like, "Huh. Interesting." It's new parts of you turning on. That's the only way it's possible to know God because we're dead because of sin. He has to give us new life, which is why why the flesh can't understand any of the things of God. You need the spirit to comprehend. And when you have it, as the blind man doesn't know, and the flesh can't know, the seeing man can know, as the spiritually alive man can know. ----- If you truly asked Him to reveal Himself to you ... be prepared for the entirety of the rest of your life to change. It's an amazing calling, and it has so many facets ... but be warned, the enemy will try to come and deceive you. To trick you, or fool you, or trip you up in some way. But if you keep repeating your desire to know if God is real, to seek Him out if He is, God will know this, and the devil will not be able to fool you. God is able to keep those who are His on the right path, despite our best efforts, and the enemy's best efforts, to derail us. God is greater in all ways. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl>: Sep 15 08:09PM +0200 Op 15-Sep-16 om 6:54 PM schreef Rick C. Hodgin: > fact He's already been working on you throughout your life, and in the > preceding weeks and months leading up to it. You have already had hints > of Him that you are not able to deny, even though you try. Hmm you must use a different meaning for some of those words, because up to now I succeed very well in denying, without putting much effort in it. > time forward, if you are honestly seeking to know if God is real or not, > and are not just saying the words without a true heart's intent on knowing > whether He's real or not, then you will start to know things. I certainly know things. But what you say sound more like your definition of 'honestly seeking'. By that definition I am definitely not 'honestly seeking'. >> capitals for imaginary beings) will ever prove himself, and what would >> constitute a proof anyway? > It's one of those things ... you will simply know. If 'you simply know' is a valid argument for god it is a valid argument for anything. > deceive you. To trick you, or fool you, or trip you up in some way. But > if you keep repeating your desire to know if God is real, to seek Him out > if He is, God will know this, and the devil will not be able to fool you. When I was a teenager I had some friends who were moderately into drugs (yeah, I am Dutch), who used roughly the same words. I was never tempted. > Best regards, > Rick C. Hodgin Same to you, but for now I'll change my 'middle name' Wouter "Deities? No Thanks!" van Ooijen |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 15 11:26AM -0700 On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 2:09:26 PM UTC-4, Wouter van Ooijen wrote: > > of Him that you are not able to deny, even though you try. > Hmm you must use a different meaning for some of those words, because up > to now I succeed very well in denying, without putting much effort in it. Not at all. For those who will be saved this will be their experience. For those who will not be saved, God will honor their rejection of Him and send them a strong delusion so that they might believe the lie. The man without a fear of God, and without their sins forgiven by Jesus Christ, is the most loathsome thing in existence, for such a one is, by their choice, wrought of sin, wrapped in sin, engaged in sin, and doing only harmful and sinful things. Such a person is like a cancer, which is why God sends them a strong delusion so that they will not come to Jesus Christ, will not ask Him for forgiveness otherwise they would be saved. God is keeping His eternal house clean. No sin will ever enter into it. He's made a special place for sin, which is the place called Hell. It is a place of eternal isolation, where the cancer that is sin cannot enter into God's creation and wreak havoc, for we are all eternal beings, and those who embrace sin reject truth and rightness ... by definition. It's why they're isolated from God's perfect design. God honors our choices. He gives us volition. For those who will not be saved ... there is no hope for you. You will never come to know of Jesus Christ until that day you stand before Him in eternity to be judged. But for everyone else who will be saved, it will be as I have explained. God's anger is poured out unto sin, not unto righteousness, and for all who ask forgiveness of Jesus Christ, God doesn't see us in sin, but He sees us in righteousness. He sees His own Son in our sin at the cross, which is why He looked away from His Son in that final moment, because God is so Holy, Holy, Holy, that He cannot look upon sin. Jesus reconciled all of the world (all people everywhere) unto Himself at the cross. He paid the price for everybody's sin. And God the Father has put judgment into His Hands. Only those written in the Lamb's Book of Life will be saved. The rest will be cast into outer darkness, into the lake of fire and eternal damnation. This is no small matter. This is the most critical thing about your life. It's why I spend this time writing these posts. There is a day of your appointed death coming. You will keep it because it's not yours to miss out on. It is God's, for He has numbered your days and it cannot be altered. On that day you will meet Jesus Christ either as a lamb or a lion. If as a lamb, you will be safe. He will have covered your sin and you will not go into condemnation. But if as a lion, even as a young lion, that day will come upon you and crush all your bones. There will be nothing left of you except agony and torment ... forever. It's why I write these things, because nobody world-wide needs to go there. Only those who reject Him of their own volition will go there, and they will have sent themselves there with a full-on running charge and a grand leap of their own will. And the defensive line they ran through to make it to that place of leaping into the flames will be riddled with a life's history of men and women like me, angelic buffeting, Godly calling, and a known inner voice knocking on your soul, all of which you rejected to get there. You will have maneuvered your way purposefully, carefully, cautiously toward that end, and the fruit of your choices, of your labor toward your evasion of God and everything related to God, will be the eternal torment of your soul. And there will be no denying it. There will be no case where somebody calls foul. You will give an account of your life and you will condemn yourself time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. How patient God was with you. How many years He gave you to grow up and come out of your rebellion and recognize your need for forgiveness, and how hard hearted you would've had to be to continue denying Him all of that time. ----- It's your choice, Wouter. I urge you to choose life, to choose to ask forgiveness of your sin from Jesus Christ because the alternative is completely unbearable. But if you are not one who will be saved, you will find that out soon enough for yourself. But I pray earnestly that you are one who will be saved ... because the end of a life lived against Jesus Christ ... is ... completely ... unbearable. Nobody returns from that end. Ever. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl>: Sep 15 10:41PM +0200 Op 15-Sep-16 om 8:26 PM schreef Rick C. Hodgin: > is why God sends them a strong delusion so that they will not come to > Jesus Christ, will not ask Him for forgiveness otherwise they would be > saved. Obviously, this applies to me. Reminds me of Hozier's song "take me to church". > God honors our choices. He gives us volition. For those who will not > be saved ... there is no hope for you. You will never come to know of > Jesus Christ until that day you stand before Him in eternity to be judged. I think we will have an interesting conversation! > It's your choice, Wouter. I urge you to choose life I most definitely do! This life, here, that I experience now, with my beloveds. None of which are imaginary. > forgiveness of your sin *My* sin? If I have sinned, it is for none but me to sand for that. I won't let anyone else, imaginary or not, take that from me. Wouter "Imaginary friends? No thanks, I have real ones" van Ooijen |
| Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com>: Sep 15 08:16AM +0800 AT Thursday 15 September 2016 04:08, Ian Collins wrote: >> Anyone adding a sky::std::string deserves a public flogging, so trying >> to defend against that is a wasted effort. And makes the code unreadable. > It's a bit like the Swiss defending against a seaborne invasion... There is Lake Constance. ;-) -- Reinhardt |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: Sep 14 07:58PM -0700 On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 10:21:13 AM UTC-5, Bo Persson wrote: Bo, please don't swear here. Brian Ebenezer Enterprises http://webEbenezer.net |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: Sep 14 08:14PM -0700 On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 3:08:52 PM UTC-5, Ian Collins wrote: > > Anyone adding a sky::std::string deserves a public flogging, so trying > > to defend against that is a wasted effort. And makes the code unreadable. > It's a bit like the Swiss defending against a seaborne invasion... It seems to me that every country needs to defend itself from missiles launched from ships. I also use that :: prefix. An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure. Brian Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust. http://webEbenezer.net |
| red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid>: Sep 14 10:17PM -0700 > On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 10:21:13 AM UTC-5, Bo Persson wrote: > Bo, please don't swear here. Fuck off about that, will you? |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 15 10:44AM +0200 > On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 10:21:13 AM UTC-5, Bo Persson wrote: > Bo, please don't swear here. You are quite happy with threats of public flogging, but a little colourful language for emphasis gets your knickers in a twist? You really have got your priorities messed up. (Not that I think there is anything wrong with Bo's recommended punishment here - most people don't take such suggestions literally.) |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 15 10:46AM +0200 > missiles launched from ships. > I also use that :: prefix. An ounce of prevention is worth > more than a pound of cure. Do you also walk around wearing a life jacket, just in case you need it? When the "prevention" gets in the way, and offers no more than minimal protection against something that is highly unlikely to happen, then it is a /bad/ idea. |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Sep 15 12:40PM >>=20 >It seems to me that every country needs to defend itself from >missiles launched from ships. It seems to me that you don't understand the meaning of the word _invasion_. |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: Sep 15 08:45AM -0700 On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 3:46:52 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote: > When the "prevention" gets in the way, and offers no more than minimal > protection against something that is highly unlikely to happen, then it > is a /bad/ idea. It could happen due to ignorance, maliciousness or by accident, so I disagree that it's highly unlikely. If the use of a :: prefix is considered odd by some, keep in mind the people of G-d are called to be a peculiar people: "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" 1st Peter 2:9 Brian Ebenezer Enterprises http://webEbenezer.net |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: Sep 15 08:51AM -0700 On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 7:40:18 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote: > >It seems to me that every country needs to defend itself from > >missiles launched from ships. > It seems to me that you don't understand the meaning of the word _invasion_. I don't want my country invaded by people or missiles. |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: Sep 15 09:06AM -0700 > a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of Him > who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" > 1st Peter 2:9 http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/peculiar Pe`cul´iar a. 1. One's own; belonging solely or especially to an individual; not possessed by others; of private, personal, or characteristic possession and use; not owned in common or in participation. And purify unto himself a peculiar people. - Titus 2: 14. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 15 06:33PM +0200 > so I disagree that it's highly unlikely. > If the use of a :: prefix is considered odd by some, keep > in mind the people of G-d are called to be a peculiar people: Programming is not religion. Your religion and your beliefs are entirely up to /you/ - no one else is interested or wants to know. Code that you show other people, on the other hand, is not just for you - that is the whole point. So there is no place for "peculiarities" like this in such code. If you are going to show code to other people, make an effort to make it as clear and sensible as you can. When almost everyone else tells you a :: prefix to std:: is ugly, unnecessary and distracting, then you should listen to them. |
| Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu>: Sep 15 10:10AM -0700 > same as ::std::example, the code base is so [expletive] up that > you should just discard it and start over. > Anyone adding a sky::std::string deserves a public flogging, [...] ITYM ::sky::std::string ;) |
| Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid>: Sep 15 09:26PM +0100 On 14/09/2016 13:06, Stefan Ram wrote: > fprintf( stderr, "Please enter a number!\n" ); > else > summe += wert; I like my braces on separate lines. That way when I add something into the code you can clearly see what I really did. while( fgets( eingabe, sizeof eingabe, stdin )) if( sscanf( eingabe, "%d", &wert )!= 1 ) + { fprintf( stderr, "Please enter a number!\n" ); + ++errcount; + } else summe += wert; In your style that would be while( fgets( eingabe, sizeof eingabe, stdin )) if( sscanf( eingabe, "%d", &wert )!= 1 ) { - { fprintf( stderr, "Please enter a number!\n" ); + { fprintf( stderr, "Please enter a number!\n" ); + ++errcount; } else summe += wert; and git blame would blame me for using fprintf in a C++ programme. (I don't like Git - but we use Android, so I'm stuck with it. And some of the time I'm stuck with Linus' coding standards too :( ) Andy |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 15 10:26AM +0200 On 14/09/16 00:32, Tim Rentsch wrote: > More specifically, all members of the largest extended character > set specified among the supported locales. I knew that part > already - it was quoted in my posting. (I knew you knew that - I was just going through the steps of the reasoning as I understood it.) > I'm not sure how that statement connects to the Subject: line > in a way that is "exceedingly obvious" (and I realize it was > Alf, not you, that said that), but anyway I will let that slide. My guess (only a guess, as it was Alf who said it) is that the subject line makes it obvious that we are talking specifically about Windows 32-bit API here - rather than Unicode on Linux, or Unicode on Windows using a different set of choices (perhaps some compilers on Windows have 32-bit whcar_t). > You missed a step. This conclusion assumes that because > Windows "supports" UTF-16, there must be a supported locale > that includes all of those characters. Yes, I see I made that assumption - although the locale would not have to support /all/ of those characters, merely at least one of the characters that requires more than one UTF-16 code unit. The locales I am familiar with on Windows are UK English and Norwegian, both of which work fine with Latin-1, and don't need characters outside the UCS-2 subset of UTF-16. So to be honest, I don't know whether or not any locales in Windows require multi-unit characters in UTF-16. So I can't tell you if my assumption, and therefore my conclusion, was correct or not. > As it stands the above statement begs the question. > Can anyone quote chapter and verse to provide a compelling > answer to this question? Not me. I'm going back to "listen and learn" mode in this thread. My knowledge of unicode and the C++ standard here is enough to question some people's statements, or to make some questionable statements of my own - but not nearly enough to say something sensible at this level of detail. But I am curious about the answer here. |
| Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu>: Sep 11 10:55AM -0700 > wchar_t, and the signed and unsigned integer types are collectively > called integral types." > References are to the C++11 standard. In the C standard the type wchar_t is defined in 7.19p2, and char{16,32}_t in 7.28p2, but other than that I think the two are pretty much the same. > wchar_t with surrogate pairs for unicode coverage (nor for that matter > 8-bit wchar_t with UTF-8), but there may be something else in the > standard about that, either in C++11 or C++14. I think this is sort of right and sort of wrong. The question is what characters must be in "the largest extended character set specified among the supported locales". AFAICT that set does not have to be any larger than what is in the "C" locale, which is "the minimal environment for C translation" (which for the sake of discussion let's say is the same as 7-bit ASCII). If that set is small enough, then wchar_t could be 16 bits or 8 bits, as you say. If however "the largest extended character set specified among the supported locales" has 100,000 characters, then I don't see how wchar_t can be 16 bits or smaller, because there is no way for each of those 100,000 characters to have a distinct code. Now, if the largest extended character set has only the 127 ASCII characters (plus 0 for null), then wchar_t can be 8 bits and use a UTF-8 encoding. Or, if the largest extended character set has only the 16-bit Unicode characters that do not need surrogate pairs for their encoding, then wchar_t can be 16 bits and use a UTF-16 encoding. AFAICT both of these scenarios are allowed by the C and C++ standards. But it depends on what characters are in the the largest extended character set specified among the supported locales. Let me emphasize that the above represents my best understanding, and only that, and which may in fact be wrong if there is something I have missed. |
| Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid>: Sep 10 10:22PM +0100 On 09/09/2016 16:13, David Brown wrote: <snip> > source code with a BOM. It is less understandable, and at least as bad > for MSVC to require a BOM. gcc fixed their code in version 4.4 - has > MSVC fixed their compiler yet? You've obviously come from a Linux world. My experience from years back is that a file won't have a BOM, because we know what character set it is. It's US Ascii, or some other 7 bit national variant - or it might even be EBCDIC. Only the truly obscure have a 6-bit byte, and are limited to UPPER CASE ONLY. Linux assumes you are going to run UTF-8, and that's just as invalid as assuming Windows 1251 - which used to be a perfectly sane assumption in some parts of the world. The BOM gets you around a few of these problems. If you want to compile your code on the world's most popular operating system then you have to follow its rules. Inserting a BOM is far less painful than swapping all your slashes around - or even turning them into Yen symbols. <snip> > Maybe MS and Windows simply suffer from being the brave pioneer here, > and the *nix world watched them then saw how to do it better. I think you're right. The 16-bit Unicode charset made perfect sense at the time. <snip> > The advantages of UTF-8 over UTF-16 are clear and technical, not just > "feelings" or propaganda. The advantages are a lot less clear in countries that habitually use more than 128 characters. Little unimportant countries like Japan, China, India, Russia, Korea... Andy |
| Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu>: Sep 15 10:07AM -0700 > A C++ implementation can be hosted or free-standing. I believe the > question here is if a hosted C++ implementation must support all the > locales and character sets supported by its host. Right, the question applies only for hosted implementations. I should clarify a point of terminology. The word "locale" may be used in several different contexts. In my comments above I mean the word "locale" only in the sense of the context described in the C or C++ standards, ie, those sets of characters and characteristics identified by a particular implementation of C or C++. So for your sentence there I agree with what I think you're trying to say, but I say it differently, viz., the question is whether a hosted C++ (or C) implementation must supply a locale that incorporates all characters and characteristics "supported" by the execution environment (which might be called a "host locale"). > [...] So I guess MSVC++ implementation might be standard-conforming > in this area if the declared that it they are just supporting half > of UCS-2 as the maximum character set. That is my belief, yes, and the question before the group. One minor correction. My understanding is that UCS-2 means only those characters that are representable without using surrogate pairs, so that would apply if MSVC++ declared they were supporting all of UCS-2, not just half of it. (Let me be explicit that I am not sure my understanding of UCS-2 is right, and may be something slightly different. In any case this is a side issue; I think we both understand what is meant.) > However, this is not what they claim. In all documentation they > give an impression that they support all Unicode. > [snip elaboration] Granted, if the documentation is wrong in any material way then the implementation has not met its burden and is non-conforming. The question of interest is where the supplied documentation describes what is done accurately but defines the largest supported locale as being just those characters whose Unicode code points may be represented in 16 bits without overlapping the surrogate pair codes. If an implementation does that then I believe it would be conforming to limit wchar_t to 16 bits. A fine point: AFAICT it would be conforming to define the largest supported locale to be just that limited set, and have wchar_t be just 16 bits, and /also/ say that certain routines (or character and/or string literals) encode other Unicode code points using two wchar_t objects that have values in the surrogate pair ranges. The constraints on wchar_t are based on what characters make up the largest supported locale, not on what might happen for any "characters" outside that set. And implementations certainly are allowed to define what happens outside the set of circumstances where the standards mandate some particular behavior. |
| 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