- How to choose where function is implemented? - 1 Update
- Pointer declarations - 6 Updates
- Pointer declarations - 1 Update
- Poe's law - 3 Updates
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Nov 26 12:09PM +1300 On 11/24/2017 01:07 PM, Öö Tiib wrote: > with what data and who is implementing. For example different people > think differently what is better: hash(a) or a.hash() ... > a.to_string() or to_string(a) ... a.clone() or clone(a) ... and so on. Just ask yourself whether it makes sense for a to know how to clone its self or represent its self as a string. For external entity to clone an object, the object would have to expose too many of its private parts... -- Ian. |
| Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>: Nov 25 01:19PM On 25 Nov 2017 12:43:44 GMT > { auto i { 4 }; > auto * p { &i }; > /* ... */ } 'int * p = &i'. If you are passing pointers around, in my view it is better explicitly to declare its type. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Nov 25 04:52PM On 25/11/2017 13:19, Chris Vine wrote: >> /* ... */ } > 'int * p = &i'. If you are passing pointers around, in my view it is > better explicitly to declare its type. And more to the point: int i = 4; not fucking: auto i { 4 }; which is borderline mental. /Flibble |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Nov 25 04:54PM On 25/11/2017 16:52, Mr Flibble wrote: > not fucking: > auto i { 4 }; > which is borderline mental. And even better: int_fast32_t i = 4; if you want a fast integer with at least 32 bits. /Flibble |
| Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid>: Nov 25 09:30PM On 25/11/2017 13:19, Chris Vine wrote: > If you are passing pointers around, in my view it is > better explicitly to declare its type. My view too. Use auto only when you must (eg lambdas). In my old company that was a coding standard. Andy |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Nov 25 11:03PM On 25/11/2017 21:30, Vir Campestris wrote: >> better explicitly to declare its type. > My view too. Use auto only when you must (eg lambdas). > In my old company that was a coding standard. Using auto for the return value of a function call is fine but using auto to initialize from a value literal is just mental. /Flibble |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Nov 26 12:05PM +1300 On 11/26/2017 12:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> In my old company that was a coding standard. > Using auto for the return value of a function call is fine but using > auto to initialize from a value literal is just mental. It is that. A bit like using suffix return for main :) -- Ian |
| ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram): Nov 25 12:43PM Which style is better for a pointer declaration: A: { auto i { 4 }; auto p { &i }; /* ... */ } or B: { auto i { 4 }; auto * p { &i }; /* ... */ } ? |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Nov 24 04:22PM -0800 Leigh, you are a most capable individual. You have created things that make people's lives better, and easier. You've contributed positively to improving people's lives. But because you've been taught that the Bible is false at school, in media, as part of an ongoing counter-teaching, and you accept that as fact, so that when someone like me teaches you about something you don't know, aren't aware of, you are able to easily dismiss it. What Christians teach you is the truth, Leigh. It's the truth this world not only denies you, but actively contradicts. Right now, you are unwilling to entertain the possibility that you afer wrong, and that there is something more. You maintain the barrier between you and truth by your assertions that you are right. Until you are willing to seek to see if you are possibly wrong, the truth will be behind the barrier you maintain, separating you from it. I want you to have a future, Leigh, after you leave this world. I want you to come to the fullness the Lord affords us here in this world, as by the rich presence of His Holy Spirit. I want the best for you, Leigh. It's why I lead you to Jesus. He will give you more than you could hope for. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Nov 25 12:26AM On 25/11/2017 00:22, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > part of an ongoing counter-teaching, and you accept that as fact, so that when > someone like me teaches you about something you don't know, aren't aware of, > you are able to easily dismiss it. You see that is the fundamental mistake you keep making: you think you are teaching people things. You have taught me absolutely nothing I don't know. I am familiar with your religion and it is no different to any other religion: it is easily dismissed as NOT being the truth. > What Christians teach you is the truth, Leigh. What Christians teach me is absolutely nothing, zero, zilch. Now fuck off. /Flibble |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Nov 24 04:39PM -0800 On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 7:27:26 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: > > What Christians teach you is the truth, Leigh. > What Christians teach me is absolutely nothing, zero, zilch. Now [go > away]. As you wish. My efforts to teach you specifically and individually are ended. Good luck, Leigh. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| 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