Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 24 updates in 6 topics

Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 11 09:06PM -0400

On 10/11/2016 6:49 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 10/11/2016 3:42 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> How old are you, Chris?
> Born in late 77.
 
What difference does it make?
 
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Oct 11 08:57PM -0700

On 10/11/2016 6:06 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> How old are you, Chris?
>> Born in late 77.
 
> What difference does it make?
 
Humm... Yeah... Now that you mention it, Rick's question does sound a
creepy... ;^)
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Oct 12 04:01PM -0700

On 10/11/2016 5:03 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> either purposefully so as to mock my posts and mock God, or because
> you simply are not seeking the truth and therefore honestly do not
> understand.
 
ROFL!!!!! I mock YOU rick! not God.
 
Fuc%ing dumbass!
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Oct 12 07:26AM

> Did you know you are an eternal being?
 
Did you know that you are a self-righteous hypocritical prick?
 
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 12 03:20AM -0700

Juha Nieminen wrote:
> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > Did you know you are an eternal being?
 
> Did you know that you are a self-righteous hypocritical .. ?
 
http://biblehub.com/kjv/1_peter/4-14.htm
 
14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ,
happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of
God resteth upon you: on their part he is
evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.
 
We each proclaim ourselves to God, to all of creation, as to whose we are:
either God's, or the devil's. The determination is made explicitly by what
we do with Jesus Christ: receive Him, or reject Him.
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>: Oct 12 09:33PM +0100

>> One thing about it. There may or may not be eternal life. But having
>> to put up with Rick's continued proselytizing makes life seem eternal!
 
> Damn it!!!!
 
Whose love is given over-well
Shall look on Helen's face in hell,
Whilst those whose love is thin and wise
May view John Knox in Paradise.
Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid>: Oct 12 11:11PM +0200

Op 11-Oct-16 om 17:24 schreef Wouter van Ooijen:
>> Did you know you are an eternal being?
 
> Yuk! I am not a static constexpr, I am a run-time object with limited
> lifetime and a well-defined a destructor.
 
However unlike C++ your moment of destruction is not deterministic; the
garbage collector can collect you at any point in time.
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Oct 12 02:46PM -0700

On 10/12/2016 2:11 PM, Dombo wrote:
>> lifetime and a well-defined a destructor.
 
> However unlike C++ your moment of destruction is not deterministic; the
> garbage collector can collect you at any point in time.
 
As long as there are no active references... ;^)
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Oct 12 12:14PM -0500

A theist telling an atheist to read the Bible is much like a meat eater
telling a vegan to try some steak; both are ignorant self righteous
fucktards who think they are always right.
 
/Flibble
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 12 10:23AM -0700

The Bible reveals itself to be true without any outside teacher. It
is God's hand penned for man, and as such He is the Schoolmaster.
 
Go for the PhD, Leigh, that way I can call you, "brother."
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
woodbrian77@gmail.com: Oct 12 10:44AM -0700

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 12:14:51 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
 
Please don't swear here.
 
 
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.
http://webEbenezer.net
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Oct 12 01:25PM -0700

On Wednesday, 12 October 2016 20:14:51 UTC+3, Mr Flibble wrote:
> A theist telling an atheist to read the Bible is much like a meat eater
> telling a vegan to try some steak; both are ignorant self righteous
> fucktards who think they are always right.
 
I can suggest (as atheist) to read the Bible. It does not matter that
Rick puts himself forward as that fucktard. His agenda is unclear. He
may be wants to discredit the whole religion. Jesus is described in
Bible as remarkably nice person who never claimed to be a God. I see
you think that he never existed and you may be correct. However it may
also be that he existed. In either case keep your mind clear of likes
of Rick and read the real thing what they worship. It is one of the
largest religions on our planet and it makes several good points.
Also several bad points. Whatever. In average it is a good book.
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>: Oct 12 10:29PM +0200

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 13:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
> of Rick and read the real thing what they worship. It is one of the
> largest religions on our planet and it makes several good points.
> Also several bad points. Whatever. In average it is a good book.
 
When you discard jealous God above armies and genocide and death
penalty for minor offends then you can find something good in it...
 
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit
Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid>: Oct 12 11:05PM +0200

> On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 12:14:51 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
 
> Please don't swear here.
 
Your religion is your problem mate, don't expect others to give a damn
about how those words affect your imaginary friend.
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Oct 12 05:40PM +0100

Rick C. Hodgin down the pub with his mate at Christmas time:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afRtJEaOSoE
 
/Flibble
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 12 10:02AM -0700

Read the Bible, Leigh, and prove me wrong based on fact, not opinion.
 
You'll find you can't, which is why you mock me, and why I pray
for you (because I know you're not stupid, but are just ignorant
due to the world not teaching you the truth, and that ignorance can
be remedied by honest learning).
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 12 10:20AM -0700

Gods design in beautiful detail, and of assembly and orchestration
proving evolution is impossible (specifically seen in the author's
presentation):
 
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPkBEYsG6EQ
 
Author presentation in greater detail:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIwXH7W_FOk
 
Some nucleotide sequences are part of 12-way usage, meaning the
"bits" must align in 12 separate functions to be viable. One change
and one or many of the 12 uses fails, resulting in non-viability.
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 12 12:24PM -0700

The Multi-dimensional Genome.
Impossible for Darwinism to account for.
By Dr Robert Carter:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3faN5fU6_Y
 
There are so many multi-use features found in DNA and RNA that
Darwinian evolution is completely disproven, and actually becomes
an embarrassment in the face of emerging evidence.
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>: Oct 12 10:27PM +0200

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 10:02:34 -0700 (PDT)
 
> Read the Bible, Leigh, and prove me wrong based on fact, not opinion.
 
Ahahahhahahahhahahah.
Bible is so full of bullshit that I want to start from beginning, that
is genesis.
It is said that light was first created then Sun and stars ;)
And before light Earth was already there ;)
And what was Earth in Bible? You tell me. It isn't planet for sure ;)
 
 
 
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Oct 12 02:05AM +0300

On 11.10.2016 20:31, mark wrote:
> for compile time calculations, array sizes, identities for static
> template classes, initialization lists, for construction of parameter
> packs, ...
 
Not sure how you like this, but this is able to strip away the cast:
 
#include <stdint.h>
 
#define REGISTER (*(volatile uint32_t *)0x42424242)
 
#define EAT(x)
#define volatile ))EAT(
#define SOME_MAGIC(x) (EAT x
 
constexpr uintptr_t register_addr = SOME_MAGIC(REGISTER);
mark <mark@invalid.invalid>: Oct 12 09:29AM +0200

On 2016-10-12 01:05, Paavo Helde wrote:
> #define volatile ))EAT(
> #define SOME_MAGIC(x) (EAT x
 
> constexpr uintptr_t register_addr = SOME_MAGIC(REGISTER);
 
Thanks, very nice! This kind of neat kludge is what I had in mind when I
started the thread.
legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Oct 12 05:19PM

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
 
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> spake the secret code
>#define volatile ))EAT(
>#define SOME_MAGIC(x) (EAT x
 
>constexpr uintptr_t register_addr = SOME_MAGIC(REGISTER);
 
It's undefined behavior to define keywords as macros.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Oct 12 07:23AM

> When type of what a function returns does not matter?
 
Do you care, for example, what the exact type that std::bind() returns is?
Or do you only care what it *does*?
 
> companies like Apple, Oracle, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and IBM
> that try to screw with it to each other. Perhaps we should boycott
> those companies.
 
Ah, you are only joking, I see.
 
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Oct 12 03:11AM -0700

On Wednesday, 12 October 2016 10:23:34 UTC+3, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> > When type of what a function returns does not matter?
 
> Do you care, for example, what the exact type that std::bind() returns is?
> Or do you only care what it *does*?
 
Now we are getting to philosophical ground and how I think. My view is
not universal, other people may think differently. A "type of it" *is* for
me "what it does". I dont know what 'std::bind' returns (because I use
lambdas that do same and more), but I assume that it is anonymous
functor type (similar like with lambdas).
 
So "type" for me is not "typename". However I like that types have name.
For example I liked that C++ did disallow anonymous structs and unions
and I disliked witdespread extension that allows those. If we can't name
something then it is probably too dim for us in essence and we need to
think more about it. Why type of value returned by 'std::bind' can not be
concretely 'std::lambda' or something like that? Fortunately there are
'decltype' and 'std::result_of' so I can name types myself when I want
names.
 
> > that try to screw with it to each other. Perhaps we should boycott
> > those companies.
 
> Ah, you are only joking, I see.
 
Somewhat. I am seriously worried about future of C++. Feeling is that
there are good ideas what to add but then they are adding syntax sugar
perversions instead. Why? The only rational explanation to it is sabotage.
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)