Monday, March 6, 2017

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 18 updates in 5 topics

"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 06 08:44AM -0800

On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 11:21:18 AM UTC-5, Joseph Hesse wrote:
> This is a C++ newsgroup. I find it disgusting that there are replies to
> this totally inappropriate post.
 
You should read the posts for content, Joseph. There may be something
you're currently missing that is important to you.
 
Thank you,
Rick C. Hodgin
Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Mar 06 10:08AM -0800

On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 11:21:18 AM UTC-5, Joseph Hesse wrote:
 
> I find it disgusting that there are replies to this totally inappropriate
> post.
 
There are replies, and then there are replies :-) In any case, it should be
easy to bring a post about beliefs back on topic, belief in a C++ creator vs
the scientific view that streams rule out intelligent C++ design, and so on.
 
Daniel
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 06 06:13PM

On 06/03/2017 12:38, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> Christianity is not a religion in the traditional sense.
 
You would say that wouldn't you because in your world view Christianity
is true and all other religions are false but it is nevertheless
bullshit: Christianity *is* a religion and it is no better than any
other religion.
 
/Flibble
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 06 06:14PM

On 06/03/2017 12:45, Daniel wrote:
 
>>> Jesus never existed; we know this because evolution is a fact.
 
>> Worst. Syllogism. Ever.
 
> Just so :-)
 
It is a fact.
 
/Flibble
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 06 06:18PM

On 06/03/2017 12:31, Daniel wrote:
> On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 1:44:03 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
 
>> There is absolutely no contemporary evidence of Jesus's existence, none.
 
> There is evidence, see for example
 
False. There is absolutely no contemporary evidence, none.
 
> http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/
 
Not going to read your random unscientific theologistic website.
 
[snip]
 
> Well, the pope has no problem with evolution, the Catholic church has had no
> problem with evolution since at least 1950, the same can be said of the more
> intellectually grounded protestant churches,
 
If evolution is true then there was no Adam and Eve which means no
Original Sin, a cornerstone of Christianity and Catholicism.
 
/Flibble
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 06 06:23PM

On 06/03/2017 12:31, Daniel wrote:
 
>> There is absolutely no contemporary evidence of Jesus's existence, none.
 
> There is evidence, see for example
 
> http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/
 
Oh and by the way Josephus and Tacitus are not CONTEMPORARY sources so
are no better quality than the Gospels; CONTEMPORARY means alive at the
same time as and therefore contemporary to Jesus's supposed
lifetime/existence.
 
So, try again.
 
/Flibble
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 06 10:26AM -0800

On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 1:18:22 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
 
> >> As we know Evolution is a fact
> If evolution is true then there was no Adam and Eve which means no
> Original Sin, a cornerstone of Christianity and Catholicism.
 
Evolution is not true, Leigh. It's been taught as fact for so long
people believe it to be fact. But it is not.
 
There will come a time when the Lord stops reaching out to you when
you repeatedly refuse to hear His call. And that will be it for
your soul.
 
http://biblehub.com/kjv/romans/1.htm
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge,
God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which
are not convenient;
 
When God stops calling out to you, there will be no more inner moral
guidance. It will be your own sin overtaking every area of your
life unrestrained. Such a person is not only the walking dead in
their unrepentant sin, Leigh, but they are the only ones remaining
without hope.
 
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,
covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit,
malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors
of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural
affection, implacable, unmerciful:
 
This last verse of Romans 1 is where you are headed today, Leigh.
 
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such
things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have
pleasure in them that do them.
 
Thank you,
Rick C. Hodgin
Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>: Mar 06 06:57PM


>>> Worst. Syllogism. Ever.
 
>> Just so :-)
 
> It is a fact.
 
It's definitely one fact, and it might well be two facts.
But its a terrible syllogism.
Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>: Mar 06 06:58PM

> the same time as and therefore contemporary to Jesus's supposed
> lifetime/existence.
 
> So, try again.
 
There are no CONTEMPORARY sources for dinosaurs either. Contemporary
sources are great, but non-contemporary sources do have some value.
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 06 07:16PM

On 06/03/2017 18:26, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> Original Sin, a cornerstone of Christianity and Catholicism.
 
> Evolution is not true, Leigh. It's been taught as fact for so long
> people believe it to be fact. But it is not.
 
Evolution is fact: it happens which means no Original Sin which means
your religion is garbage.
 
/Flibble
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 06 12:39PM -0800

On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 2:16:35 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Evolution is fact: it happens...
 
There is adaptation within a species, but this is only allowing various
traits which already existed to come forward and be dominant. It is
not the new information the theory of evolution says must happen, such
as a lower thing evolving into a higher thing. That has never been
observed, and it cannot happen with what we now know about DNA and the
information systems at work within DNA (thanks to computers).
 
> which means no Original Sin which means your religion is garbage.
 
Your base premise, the one you keep insisting on as though it were
fact, is not true, Leigh. Therefore, your entire conclusion that's
based upon it crumbles.
 
If you want to know how things really work, watch this video:
 
Science Confirms the Bible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFYswvGoaPU
 
If you want to remain in ignorance and wrong thinking, maintain the
walls you have up against the truth and remain where you are. But I
warn you, such a stolid stance against the truth will lead you to
only one place: Hell.
 
Thank you,
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 06 11:09PM

On 06/03/2017 20:39, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> as a lower thing evolving into a higher thing. That has never been
> observed, and it cannot happen with what we now know about DNA and the
> information systems at work within DNA (thanks to computers).
 
The evidence shows/proves otherwise so in a word: bullshit.
 
 
> Your base premise, the one you keep insisting on as though it were
> fact, is not true, Leigh. Therefore, your entire conclusion that's
> based upon it crumbles.
 
That paragraph is almost correct: I simply need to change my name with
your name thus:
 
Your base premise, the one you keep insisting on as though it were fact,
is not true, Rick. Therefore, your entire conclusion that's based upon
it crumbles.
 
 
> If you want to know how things really work, watch this video:
 
> Science Confirms the Bible
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFYswvGoaPU
 
You honestly think I would watch such a video? The problem with
Christian anti-science videos is that they tend to not even have comedic
value.
 
> walls you have up against the truth and remain where you are. But I
> warn you, such a stolid stance against the truth will lead you to
> only one place: Hell.
 
Hell doesn't exist dear: when you die conciousness ceases, that's it.
 
/Leigh
legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Mar 06 10:01PM

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
 
Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> spake the secret code
 
>Well VS has a better debugger (the best IMO), but Eclipse CDT is more
>powerful when managing projects
 
To what exactly are you referring when you say "managing projects"?
--
"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>
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 06 02:07PM -0800

On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 7:40:24 AM UTC-5, Cholo Lennon wrote:
> On 01/03/17 18:33, Vir Campestris wrote:
> Well VS has a better debugger (the best IMO)...
 
VS does have the best debugger, and the best development environment
because of its IDE features, but also because it possesses edit-and-
continue, which allows you to make source code level changes while
your program is running, recompile on-the-fly and continue your
existing debugging session.
 
This works with many changes, but not all. Change called parameters,
for example, and it must be restarted. But you can add variables,
and new code, and delete old code, etc.
 
There's nothing that comes close to Visual Studio.
 
Thank you,
Rick C. Hodgin
Christiano <christiano@engineer.com>: Mar 06 06:05PM -0300

First, on my computer the bits FAIL, EOF, BAD (Composing the istream
state) are organized as follows:
Table 1:
fail eof bad state
0 0 0 0 (good state)
0 0 1 1
0 1 0 2
0 1 1 3
1 0 0 4
1 0 1 5
1 1 0 6
1 1 1 7
 
Page 355 of PPP2[1]
 
### Statement 1 ###:
"A stream that is bad() is also fail()"
 
This statement seems to work in the vast majority of cases, but it can't
be postulated as a general rule.
See the example:
 
#include <iostream>
 
int main()
{
std::cin.ignore(10000, 'q');
std::cout << std::cin.rdstate() << std::endl;
 
return 0;
}
 
using this input (linux environment):
adsadasasas <ENTER>
<CTRL+D>
 
Result: 2
Reading table 1 we have:
fail eof bad
0 1 0
 
That is: In the same way as we have an example where eof appears alone
without fail, we could have bad alone without fail.
This happens because when using "ignore" we are not reading for a
variable and therefore would not justify a fail since this only happens
when we have a formatted problem (That can only occur when we are
reading for a variable.).
 
I've used the example with eof because it's hard to create examples with
bad.
 
Then the book says:
### Statement 2 ###:
"The !cin can be read as 'cin is not good' or 'Something went wrong with
cin' or 'the state of cin is not good()'."
 
But this is not true, !cin means "cin is fail", as said by standard:
ISO/IEC 14882:2011(E) [2], 27.5.5.4:
------------------------------------------
explicit operator bool() const;
Returns: !fail()
 
bool operator!() const;
Returns: fail()
------------------------------------------
 
Example:
#include <iostream>
 
int main()
{
std::cin.ignore(10000, 'q');
 
if(!std::cin)
std::cout << "Test 1: first" << std::endl;
else
std::cout << "Test 1: second" << std::endl;
 
std::cout << std::cin.rdstate() << std::endl;
 
 
return 0;
}
 
input (linux environment)
asdasdasdasd <ENTER>
<ctrl+D>
 
Result:
Test 1: second
2
 
If statement 2 were true, then the result should be:
Test 1: first
2
 
---------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://stroustrup.com/Programming/
ISBN 978-0-321-99278-9
Programming: Principles and Practice using C++ (Second Edition)
In respect to the group and author:
I have the original book,
Using here only a little portion of the book for
educational/research purposes according to fair use.
 
[2] ISO/IEC 14882:2011
I have the original standard,
Using here only a little portion for
educational/research purposes according to fair use.
Christiano <christiano@engineer.com>: Mar 06 06:12PM -0300

On 03/06/2017 06:05 PM, Christiano wrote:
> I have the original standard,
> Using here only a little portion for
> educational/research purposes according to fair use.
 
Rewriting table 1
 
fail---eof----bad-----state
0-------0------0--------0 (good state)
0-------0------1--------1
0-------1------0--------2
0-------1------1--------3
1-------0------0--------4
1-------0------1--------5
1-------1------0--------6
1-------1------1--------7
Louis Krupp <lkrupp@nospam.pssw.com.invalid>: Mar 06 12:57PM -0700

>#include <stdio.h>
>#include <gsl/gsl_vector.h>
>#include <gsl/gsl_multiroots.h>
 
<snip>
 
> print_state(iter, s);
 
<snip>
 
>int print_state(size_t iter, gsl_multiroot_fsolver* s){
 
<snip>
>rootFinding.cc:103:27: error: 'struct gsl_multiroot_fsolver' has no member named 'v'
> gsl_vector_get(s->v, 0),
 
>Why am I having these problems? Any help would be much appreciated!
 
You need to declare print_state() before you use it. See:
 
http://www.cplusplus.com/articles/yAqpX9L8/
 
I did a search for gsl_multiroot_fsolver, and I found this
declaration:
 
typedef struct
71 {
72 const gsl_multiroot_fsolver_type * type;
73 gsl_multiroot_function * function ;
74 gsl_vector * x ;
75 gsl_vector * f ;
76 gsl_vector * dx ;
77 void *state;
78 }
79 gsl_multiroot_fsolver;
 
in this page:
 
https://fossies.org/dox/gsl-2.3/gsl__multiroots_8h_source.html
 
so it's possible that gsl_multiroot_fsolver really has no member named
'v'.
 
Wild guess: Try passing 'v' as an argument to print_state and using
'v' instead of 's->v'.
 
Louis
Andrey Karpov <karpov2007@gmail.com>: Mar 06 10:48AM -0800

Big presentation:
PVS-Studio. Static code analyzer. Windows/Linux, C/C++/C#. 2017
 
YouTube: https://youtu.be/kmqF130pQW8
 
SlideShare: https://www.slideshare.net/Andrey_Karpov/pvsstudio-static-code-analyzer-windowslinux-ccc-2017
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)