Tuesday, February 6, 2018

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 20 updates in 6 topics

pvr.ram34@gmail.com: Feb 06 12:27PM -0800

https://unacademy.com/course/concepts-of-c/38RLD30R
woodbrian77@gmail.com: Feb 06 10:47AM -0800

> sure what to do to get there.
 
> https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards/blob/master/makefile
 
> Thanks in advance.
 
I would like to extract the code in my github repo as
it was at the first commit. I haven't used any releases so
guess that won't help. Is there a way to do it? The reason
I want to do it is to compare how long it used to take to
build against how long it takes now. Thanks in advance.
 
 
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Feb 06 11:00AM -0800

> guess that won't help. Is there a way to do it? The reason
> I want to do it is to compare how long it used to take to
> build against how long it takes now. Thanks in advance.
 
c:\repository_name\> git reset --hard commit_identifier
 
The commit_identifier is the SHA-1 20-byte code for the commit you want to
go back to. You can also repeatedly use "git reset --hard HEAD~1" to step
back one commit at a time. If you want to leave your files on the hard
drive as they are today, and just move back in the git system, then use
"--soft" instead of "--hard".
 
In your repository here:
 
https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards/commit/d920658cf679ac2ddd9aab580154ec44780b0978
 
The line would be:
 
c:\ebenezer-group\> git reset --hard d920658cf679ac2ddd9aab580154ec44780b0978
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Feb 06 11:08AM -0800

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 2:00:49 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards/commit/d920658cf679ac2ddd9aab580154ec44780b0978
 
> The line would be:
 
> c:\ebenezer-group\> git reset --hard d920658cf679ac2ddd9aab580154ec44780b0978
 
Note: You should do this on a copy of your repository. Do not do it on your
remote repository. Or if you do, do not commit with the "--force" option
because that will cause your remote repository to sync with that commit
again and everything since will be lost.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>: Feb 06 08:12PM

On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 10:47:37 -0800 (PST)
> guess that won't help. Is there a way to do it? The reason
> I want to do it is to compare how long it used to take to
> build against how long it takes now. Thanks in advance.
 
Don't listen to the advice you have been given and particularly don't
do a hard reset.
 
Do 'git log' and find your first commit at the very beginning. That
will give you a hash; then just do 'git checkout [hash]'. This will put
you in a detached state with your repository as it was at the time of
the first commit. If you want to work on it in that first state, do a
'git branch my-first-commit' to set up a new branch; if you just want to
tag it to go back to it later, use 'git tag'. It you just want to view
it, do nothing (except view it).
 
Chris
Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>: Feb 06 08:14PM

On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 20:12:09 +0000
> state, do a 'git branch my-first-commit' to set up a new branch; if
> you just want to tag it to go back to it later, use 'git tag'. It
> you just want to view it, do nothing (except view it).
 
And of course, to then go back to your current master, do 'git checkout
master' (which will release your detached state and put you back
where you started, assuming you started on master branch).
woodbrian77@gmail.com: Feb 06 10:06AM -0800

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 2:25:21 PM UTC-6, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> wrong (he was only human, not a God);
> or a liar (he is a deceitful God);
> or he also never existed.
 
The C++ Middleware Writer is a modern day Noah's Ark.
As the ark was built over many years, many people had
the opportunity to see what the ark looked like from the
outside. Noah didn't build it in a hangar or walled off
area. Similarly I'm doing some of the work on the CMW
in the open:
https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards
 
I appreciate comments on how to improve it and my offer
to help someone who is willing to use it still stands:
http://webEbenezer.net/about.html
.
 
 
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Feb 06 01:13PM

On Fri, 2018-02-02, Paavo Helde wrote:
>> blasting the PC to bits than worrying about the malloc failing.
 
> On Linux this might even hold as the offending memory eaters are killed
> by the kernel.
 
Maybe: IIRC the "OOM killer" in the kernel has some fancy heuristics
for which process to kill. It's not guaranteed to be the one you see
as the offender.
 
Then, I think you can also disable the OOM killer (although few seem
to do that), and get the behavior below:
 
> all the memory and then random other processes start crashing as they
> have been written with exactly this assumption that a 100 byte malloc
> will never fail.
 
/Jorgen
 
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Feb 06 01:48PM

On Fri, 2018-02-02, Stefan Ram wrote:
 
> I make a difference between (at least) /two/ requirement types:
 
> 1. "sunshine code"
 
> This is supposed to work as long as the weather is fine.
...
 
> This is code that will or might end up in a library
> where it is called under unknown circumstances. It needs
> to fulfill the contract from its documentation.
 
It's important IMHO to realize that there are different requirement
types, but you picked the extremes.
 
There's plenty of non-library code which musn't fail uncontrolledly.
The "called under unknown circumstances" part isn't there, but you
still need to deal with the program's environment.
 
BTW, I'd like to mention one more type, close to the sunshine code:
where the program may fail to do its job, but must tell the user and
give her the tools to troubleshoot.
 
/Jorgen
 
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Feb 06 05:59PM

On Mon, 2018-02-05, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> Alf P. Steinbach <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>> That's C code
 
> Is it C code from like the times of K&R C (when you couldn't even
> return a struct from a function by value)?
 
Actually, I believe late K&R C supported it too, but the users assumed
it was hideously expensive and chose to forget.
 
/Jorgen
 
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Feb 06 06:39AM

> Peter Cheung attacked several groups with his flood of posts
> against me
 
Good! Now fuck off, you fucking spammer.
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Feb 06 08:25AM -0500

On 2/6/2018 1:39 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>> Peter Cheung attacked several groups with his flood of posts
>> against me
 
> Good! Now .., you .. spammer.
 
 
Juha, as with the others here, I have no ill will toward you. I do not
understand why you are so rude and vulgar to me. I teach you the way
of forgiveness of sin and eternal life. If you can hear His call within
your heart, rejoice and jump up and down because He is reaching out to
save your soul.
 
The message is one of peace and hope and love.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Feb 06 01:54PM


>> Good! Now .., you .. spammer.
 
> Juha, as with the others here, I have no ill will toward you. I do not
> understand why you are so rude and vulgar to me.
 
Because you keep spamming this newsgroup with completely off-topic
proselytizing that nobody wants, even though everybody is telling you
to stop it and fuck off, and you dumb and act all arrogant and
hypocritical about it. When people say that they are not interested
in what you have to say, and that this isn't the place to keep repeating
the same shit over and over, you should stop if you are a decent human
being. But you are not. You are nothing but a complete asshole. And
as long as you keep spamming this newsgroup, I will keep calling you that.
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross): Feb 06 02:10PM

In article <p5cc2e$1ntg$1@adenine.netfront.net>,
>the same shit over and over, you should stop if you are a decent human
>being. But you are not. You are nothing but a complete asshole. And
>as long as you keep spamming this newsgroup, I will keep calling you that.
 
Rick asks why people are so "rude and vulgar" to him: probably
because he's rude and vulgar to them by continuing to post
off-topic religious nonsense. He claims he has no ill will, yet
he routinely posts things that are judgemental and obnoxious and
continues to do so after being explicitly asked to stop: it is
hard to imagine how someone with no ill will would continue such
behavior. Imagine if this were how he behaved at a dinner
party? It's safe to say that he wouldn't be invited back.
 
But I would suggest that continuing to call him an asshole,
while in many respects a mere statement of truth, also serves to
egg him on to continue posting. He'll see it as affirmation of
his status as a persecuted minority and vindication of what he
thinks is his righteous mission to convert the unwashed masses.
 
I suggest that the best way to deal with Rick is to ignore him
in all ways, including those occasions where he posts something
on-topic.
 
- Dan C.
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Feb 06 02:53PM

>the same shit over and over, you should stop if you are a decent human
>being. But you are not. You are nothing but a complete asshole. And
>as long as you keep spamming this newsgroup, I will keep calling you that.
 
In fact, proselytizing and conversion attempts are no better than
mental rape.
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Feb 06 07:12AM -0800

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 8:54:33 AM UTC-5, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> > understand why you are so rude and vulgar to me.
 
> Because you keep spamming this newsgroup with completely off-topic
> proselytizing that nobody wants...
 
Have you ever read the content of the things I post?
 
There might be a reason why I post it other than just to spam the group.
It might be worthy of your time to glance over it.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Feb 06 07:13AM -0800

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 9:53:36 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> In fact, proselytizing and conversion attempts are no better than
> mental rape.
 
God asks us to go forth and teach. It is by His authority that I post
these things.
 
The things I post are true, Scott:
 
1) All people have sin
2) Sin condemns us to Hell
3) Jesus came to take away our sin
4) All we have to do is ask Him and He saves us
 
That's not "mental rape." It is eternal life. It is the greatest
gift of God given unto man.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Feb 06 04:53PM +0100

On 06/02/18 15:53, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> as long as you keep spamming this newsgroup, I will keep calling you that.
 
> In fact, proselytizing and conversion attempts are no better than
> mental rape.
 
I would not say that (especially as I have no real concept of what
"mental rape" might be - but it sounds bad). If you follow a religion,
and believe it is "the truth" and of benefit to everyone (and if you
don't believe that, why are you following it?) then it is understandable
that you will want to tell people about it. Keeping the "truth" to
yourself would be selfish. If you want to put up a sign outside your
church saying "come and learn about god", that's fine. If people talk
to you and ask you about your beliefs, and you try to persuade them of
the "truth" as you see it, that's fine. If you want to put up a stand
in a public place promoting your religion, that's okay in a limited way
(the same as a stand promoting Greenpeace, or Save the Children, or
whatever).
 
Forcing people to listen to your proselytizing, or intruding upon other
people is /not/ okay. But it is not "mental rape" - it's being a public
nuisance or public disorder. It's like a Save the Children campaigner
rattling their collection box under your nose as you walk down the
street, saying "But don't you care about the children?". It is the kind
of thing that gets you fined, not jailed.
 
Forcing people to convert to your religion is a different matter -
/that/ is a crime against humanity, and perhaps "mental rape". It has
been done in all sorts of ways throughout history, and it is still done
in many places today, for many religions (including Christianity, and
including the western world). Equally, forcing someone to give up their
religion is against their human rights.
 
What Rick does here is /not/ a crime, or "mental rape". But he is being
a public nuisance, it is abuse of the freedom of speech, and this Usenet
group would be a far better place without his religious posts. The
same, IMHO, applies to Mr. Flibble's so-called "satire". It was
marginally witty the first time, but was tedious and irritating by the
second faked post, and is as counter-productive and childish as Brian's
anti-swearing campaign. (Of course we all want to keep Mr. Flibble's
on-topic C++ posts.)
 
Rick's off-topic posts are annoying, but there is no need to exaggerate
them (especially as they are pathetic "conversion attempts"). And if
Mr. Flibble follows through in his promise to cut the "satire", then
hopefully the number of nonsense threads will die down for a bit.
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Feb 06 05:43PM

On 06/02/2018 14:10, Dan Cross wrote:
 
> I suggest that the best way to deal with Rick is to ignore him
> in all ways, including those occasions where he posts something
> on-topic.
 
I agree totally about ignoring his on-topic points too (and have
suggested this myself); if he was completely ignored eventually he would
give up. Sadly people still reply to his on-topic posts which he
probably sees as affirmation that he never spams the group.
 
/Flibble
 
--
"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery
that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates
a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."
Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com>: Feb 05 08:04PM -0600

On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 17:49:42 -0500, Richard Damon
 
>If some new syntax was invented to require some change in the prototype
>so it wouldn't have been legal previously, then it could be added, but
>that wouldn't be the examples shown.
 
 
I was assuming that a function that allowed named parameters would
require those to be defined explicitly. Not unlike the way optional
parameters are specified. But yes, if you just started allowing it on
any function parameters where names are included in the definition, it
would probably be more difficult to do in a backwards compatible
manner, if possible at all.
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)