- EXAMPLE - 3 Updates
- Jesus Christ The Bastard - 4 Updates
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Mar 05 02:11PM -0800 On Monday, 5 March 2018 22:41:17 UTC+2, Ian Collins wrote: > There's nothing blind about it. I someone can put up a good case for > why goto is the best option they'd be free to use it. I simply have > never seen this happen! The goto is rarely used like deep break, deep continue and for handling of non-exceptional errors (some stuff in this universe is noisy). When people who used it knew what they do then most common attempt to rewrite it without goto will result with bit longer and not much more readable code and little drop in efficiency. So why to bother? |
| Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com>: Mar 05 04:54PM -0600 On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:28:56 +0000 (UTC), >complex sequence of conditional operations. (Think COM HRESULTs >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. >code over the past couple of decades. Given that there are better, >less error-prone alternatives, I don't think there's much of a case >for goto given its most prominent use case in real-world code. I'm certainly not arguing that goto should see frequent use, or should be a first choice in the vast majority of cases. Rather that if a goto improves clarity significantly, then it's not unreasonable to use one. I was mostly trying to provide some historical context for "Goto Statement Considered Harmful". |
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Mar 05 03:07PM -0800 On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 3:29:10 PM UTC-5, Richard wrote: > I don't think there's much of a case for goto I've occasionally used goto in implementing state machines, which can be more readable in this context than switch. Daniel |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 05 01:20PM -0800 On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 4:09:34 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote: > >> ...You assert, nothing more. > >I say exactly, "DO NOT TRUST ME! Go to the Bible and see for yourself. > The bible is just another book of collected folk tales, like the Iliad. I thought you said you were a Christian, Scott. In fact, I called you out on it rather staunchly previously saying that you are not saved, that 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. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Mar 06 10:23AM +1300 On 03/06/2018 10:20 AM, 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. Is that the other Rick, or a self parody? -- Ian. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 05 10:11PM On 05/03/2018 21:01, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > I can only conclude that teaching exists because it makes it easier > or more palpable to deal with just one part of the whole, but it's > the whole that is reality, not just parts. So 9/11 happened not because of the actions of a group of terrorists but because of the Big Bang because everything is connected? Of course not because they are INDEPENDENT EVENTS. I guess you are unaware of the concept of INDEPENDENT EVENTS. There is a model for a universe which doesn't have INDEPENDENT EVENTS where everything is pre-ordained and free will is an illusion but I am not convinced by it especially when you let quantum mechanics muddy the water. /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." |
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Mar 05 03:01PM -0800 On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 3:34:16 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > the Biblical narrative because you won't be able to find any flaws with > it What do you mean by flaws? What would you consider a flaw? Would you say that there are flaws in Shakespeare, the Iliad and the Odyssey, and other great works? If you mean to suggest that there are no contradictions in the biblical texts, that's clearly not true, it was in fact the observation of contradictions that led to modern biblical scholarship. Daniel |
| 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