Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 21 updates in 4 topics

legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Mar 06 12:00AM

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
 
Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> spake the secret code
>>returned by almost every method invocation.) These are better handled
>>in C++ by RAII techniques and exceptions than goto.
 
>That and breaking out of nested loops.
 
It will be interesting to see how ranges and views change that use
case.
--
"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>
Kan <fcantoro-nospam@taiprora-nospam.it>: Mar 06 12:59PM +0100

Il 01/03/2018 01:57, JiiPee ha scritto:
> afterLoop:
 
> I googled and this seems to be manys preferably way. I have this often.
> How would you break nested loops? Somebody said Substroup said this is ok.
 
What about:
 
bool exit_loop = false;
for (int i = 0; i < m && !exit_loop; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < n && !exit_loop; j++) {
if (some condition) {
// Do something and break...
exit_loop = false; // Breaks out of both loops
}
}
}
Kan <fcantoro-nospam@taiprora-nospam.it>: Mar 06 01:01PM +0100

Il 06/03/2018 12:59, Kan ha scritto:
>          }
>     }
> }
 
Ops, it should be:
 
bool exit_loop = false;
for (int i = 0; i < m && !exit_loop; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < n && !exit_loop; j++) {
if (some condition) {
// Do something and break...
exit_loop = true; // Breaks out of both loops
}
}
}
asetofsymbols@gmail.com: Mar 06 04:50AM -0800

I always use goto in all possible way and I have to know what is wrong for that... Even in Apl find a way for use good goto (as ->Labelxi(condition)) or goto as "if"
[as if(condition) ...]
->Labelxi~condition <> ...
Label:
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Mar 06 12:55PM

On Tue, 2018-03-06, Kan wrote:
>>> often. How would you break nested loops? Somebody said Substroup said
>>> this is ok.
 
>> What about:
 
...
> }
> }
> }
 
That is probably where this thread started: people feel it's so ugly
that they'd rather use goto. In my experience, there's always a
third, better option (like a return).
 
/Jorgen
 
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 05 04:11PM -0800

"Science Confirms The Bible" ... Learn the culmination of
knowledge from creation scientists:
 
Live web stream in about 20 minutes (6:30pm Central):
https://livestream.com/accounts/6529618/events/8076580
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Mar 06 01:15PM +1300

On 03/06/2018 01:11 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> "Science Confirms The Bible" ... Learn the culmination of
> knowledge from creation scientists:
 
Isn't "creation scientist" an oxymoron?
 
--
Ian.
Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Mar 05 04:17PM -0800

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 7:12:17 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> "Science Confirms The Bible" - creation scientists
 
New hope for dead people!
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>: Mar 05 04:23PM -0800

On 3/4/2018 2:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
 
> There is more truth to be found in my house than there is in yours mate.
>  In my house science trumps superstition and logic trumps irrational
> delusion.
 
To answer my own question, well take a look at:
 
https://faithinthenews.com/5-powerful-bible-verses-about-second-chances
 
Something like:
________________________
Matthew 18:21-22 "Then Peter came up and said to him, 'Lord, how often
will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven
times?' Jesus said to him, 'I do not say to you seven times, but seventy
times seven.'"
________________________
 
So, for some reason I read 70*7? Rick, is that correct? What am I
missing here?
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>: Mar 05 04:24PM -0800

On 3/5/2018 4:54 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> Leigh, where is there evidence of evolution?
 
If you get burned by a flame, you try to avoid touching a flame again right?
 
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>: Mar 05 04:25PM -0800

On 3/5/2018 7:29 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Leigh, where is there evidence of evolution?
 
>>> Where have we observed it actually happening?
 
> The answer is as simple as "Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus"
 
Yikes!
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>: Mar 05 04:29PM -0800

On 3/5/2018 12:03 PM, Daniel wrote:
> (b) Rick the foolish
> (c) Rick the revelator
> (d) Rick the prick
 
For some reason I want to answer a _and_ b. Humm...
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>: Mar 05 04:36PM -0800

On 3/4/2018 8:37 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> pleasant, friendly, and helpful.
 
> Every time you evade answering a direct question it speaks volumes about
> the credibility of both yourself personally and what you write about.
 
Yeah. Why should I think that the individuals in the local church will
know the answer? I thought that Rick was a Teacher! ;^o
 
Why should I go bother/spam/annoy those kind souls? Well now, Rick is
the beacon of the Word in this group: right? I asked him a simple
question about the Bible. Wow.
 
 
> So, answer the question. How many chances do you get?
 
Read the word, unfortunately I had to find it myself for the Teacher was
of no help:
 
https://faithinthenews.com/5-powerful-bible-verses-about-second-chances
 
;^)
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Mar 06 09:58AM +0100

On 04/03/18 15:06, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> actually read a number. Is it 70*7 times?
 
> Go to a local church and ask the people there. You'll find they're
> pleasant, friendly, and helpful.
 
Please take your own advice. Try talking to qualified people - priests
or ministers who have studied theology and know what they are talking
about, or experienced missionaries who understand how to spread their
faith. Hopefully you will realise that you are badly mistaken in many
aspects of what you believe and how you think you are supposed to act.
Then you can try to learn when to talk about your religious ideas and
when to keep quiet. You might even try talking to people that are
religious /and/ understand science, and learn how screwed up your
world-view actually is.
 
Of course, you will probably just assume that everyone you talk to is
possessed by the devil and only you alone have the "right" answer.
Paranoid delusions are always self re-enforcing.
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Mar 06 10:17AM +0100

On 05/03/18 21:30, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> on Earth; abiogenesis is not traditionally view as part of evolution and
>> has separate theories that attempt to explain it.
 
> How do you conclude this? I've never heard someone say this before.
 
That's because you never listen to anyone who makes sense.
 
 
> But even so, it goes from nothing (pre-Big Bang) to Big Bang to cooling and
> coalescing and the formation of molecules, to aggregation of molecules into
> macro molecules, to ... elephants, palm trees, and tuna.
 
You are attributing purpose to something that has no purpose or guide.
The universe did not progress from the Big Bang to elephants. It is a
continuously changing system (I'd use the word "evolving", but it would
be in a very different sense than biological evolution, and would just
confuse you). At this particular sample point in time - a few million
year sample out of some 13.4 billion years so far, and a great many more
years in the future - and at this particular sample point in space,
there happen to be elephants. But thinking of elephants in the context
of the big bang and the universe is like finding an interesting
leaf-shaped cornflake in your breakfast, and concluding that the entire
food industry was build to give you that one cornflake.
 
You are so firmly in the mindset of thinking everything was designed for
humans, that you miss the point entirely. It is apparent in much of
what you write, and your massive misunderstandings about evolution.
(Why can't E.Coli evolve into a dog? For much the same reason that you
can't be father to your same-aged cousins. E.Coli are modern lifeforms,
just like dogs, and they have both evolved in the approximately 2
billion years since they shared a common ancestor.)
 
Oh, and the Big Bang theory does not have a "pre-Big Bang" or have any
idea what started it. There are many other theories that /do/ try to
figure out what was before the Big Bang, or to replace or modify the Big
Bang theory, but none as yet have much evidence or grounding. As has
been said, "Science doesn't know everything. If it did, we'd stop doing
it".
 
 
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Mar 06 10:26AM +0100

On 05/03/18 21:33, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> My assertions are claims. But I don't just stop there. I don't
> espouse something and then say, "TRUST ME!" Rather the reverse.
> I say exactly, "DO NOT TRUST ME! Go to the Bible and see for yourself.
 
If we are not to trust you, then why should we trust your book
recommendations? Why should we trust your claims that any of your
religious ranting is remotely relevant to anyone else?
 
It turns out that most - if not all - of the people you are yelling at
here are already somewhat familiar with the Bible, churches, and the
basics of Christian theology. I'd suggest that many have a far better
understanding than you do. (Obsessively quoting the Bible is not the
same as understanding what the various writers were saying.)
 
Those that think reading the Bible is relevant, or interesting, or
educational, or key to saving their souls, will already be reading it.
Those that want to go to church, will go to church.
 
All you manage with your foaming-at-the-mouth rants is to ensure that
people who are a little curious about learning more of Christianity will
keep away to avoid such madness.
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Mar 06 10:31AM +0100

On 05/03/18 22:20, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> you are not a Christian.
 
> If you make the claim you do above for real ... then you are lost and
> have been deceived by the enemy.
 
Perhaps Scott /is/ a Christian, but believes God gave him a brain with
the capacity for reason so that he would /think/. Understanding that
the Bible is a collection of writings of men (and perhaps some women,
carefully disguised), based on their knowledge at the time and written
for their peers in their society. There is nothing contradictory about
being a Christian and a follower of Jesus while not considering the
Bible to be more than a collection of stories and teachings from a
by-gone era.
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 06 03:26AM -0800

On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 10:16:07 AM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> If any of you want to know the truth, seek it out. When it comes to finding
> God, and knowing who you are, what sin is, who He is, and why you need Him in
> your life ... you will find it ... when you seek it with all your heart.
 
"Scientists" are supposed to look at facts, all facts, and come
to an objective conclusion. God has given us a historical narrative,
and over time science has confirmed it while "scientists" continue
to extend, revise, replace their former theories with new ones. But
the Biblical narrative has never changed, and remains consistent
with observable evidence, including modern genetics research which
has completely proven evolution is impossibke.
 
Here is the true history of creation, man, sin, and corruption, alomg
with redemption and salvation from the corruption, and a coming new
Earth and new Heaven. God has well provisioned for us:
 
Creation, the fall, and the spreading out of man after the flood,
why we see distinct people groups in various areas:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1-11&version=KJV
 
God's love for mankind, gifting him salvation from sin, and
eternal life:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1-11&version=KJV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+12-21&version=KJV
 
The future for all of mankind, saved and unsaved:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+19-21&version=KJV
 
-----
There is a real enemy at work teaching you all "a Godless explanation"
for all things, all paths, all choices. That enemy is just that:
your enemy. He is not looking out for your interests. He is looking to see your soul in Hell.
 
Read those passages above. Tell me where you find ANY FLAW with
the Genesis account. You won't be able to.
 
God has preserved His word. Everyone who has sin and wants to be
forgiven, to have eternal life in Heaven with God, to live in a body
like the angels that never tires or ages or is infirmed ... God gifts
us a second chance to, once again, be a part of His eternal Kingdom.
He does this by giving us Jesus ... to take our sin away, and give
us new life.
 
Read these things. Think on them. Try to find fault with them.
 
God is reaching out to save YOU. Receive His free gift of forgiveness,
and eternal life through Jesus Christ.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Mar 06 01:16PM +0100

On 06/03/18 12:26, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> the Biblical narrative has never changed, and remains consistent
> with observable evidence, including modern genetics research which
> has completely proven evolution is impossibke.
 
Scientists /do/ look at the facts (though they sometimes get things
wrong, or succumb to bias, or miss things, just like everyone else).
God is not "fact", and the Bible certainly is not a source of any kind
of facts or evidence. Those that actually have a faith and a believe,
rather than just a psychosis, understand this - their belief in their
god (or gods) comes from faith, not demonstrable fact. And those that
understand science, theology, or both can easily see that the Bible (and
other religious texts from other religions) do not match with science
and observation any more than the average book of fairy tales. For
people who are actually Christian and not hysterical fanatics, this is
not an issue because they see their religious texts as a guide to their
beliefs and their way of life, rather than a science or history book.
 
Scientists - and everyone else - should follow the old adage: "Keep an
open mind, but not /so/ open that your brains dribble out".
 
<snip drivel>
me <wyniijj@gmail.com>: Mar 05 10:13PM -0800

Richard於 2018年3月6日星期二 UTC+8上午2時02分47秒寫道：
 
> Despite all your semi-religious rambling, you've neglected to
> succinctly say what this library does.
> --
 
You are right, the back part of the sentence.
"Succinctly saying" the functionality of the library would not be
easy to be short, same as others.
I used to thought "a C++ library" would be enough. But give a try.
The project(libwy) summary says "A C++ library converting average
use of syscalls and C library functions into C++ context". But,
from this simple statement, there'd already many different opinions
can fill in. I assume they were mostly from younger C++ purists
for the question why would C++ have anything to do with C? But I'd
save words for these questions. As had said, this "C++ library" is
basically a 'wrapper' library, wrapping some underlying C functions
(not really syscalls any more). In doing so, some auxiliary/
intermediate functions or (template)class...are also 'experimentally'
added, to serve the "general purpose" goal, which, sadly to say,
turned out also need to refine. See file README and manpage files of
the library for details, better not repeated here.
 
Allow me stop further explaining this "C++ library". Because one reason
of this post is to respond to people wondered or confused why I asked
some strange questions in this forum, questions that I could not
answer without causing more confusion.
 
The last time I reviewed libwy a bit, one thing came to my notice,
which relates to std::string::find_first_not_of(..). C doesn't have
such function. If C++ decided taking the labor implementing such
functionality(assume the impl. is assembly code, but...), isn't it
better in pure function form(like C)? At least, I can use it and
make my library's intro. "not using std::.." weaker. There are many
such similar/basic functions.
Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Mar 05 05:20PM -0800

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 1:01:10 PM UTC-5, Richard wrote:
 
> alflib would be better :)
 
Other suggestions:
 
stdalfabi, abi being latin for "both", suggesting both std and alf
 
alfibi, "ibi" being latin for "in that place", suggesting being in the place of alf
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)