- Stand up for Christ - 5 Updates
- EXAMPLE - 2 Updates
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 07 07:35PM On 07/03/2018 19:29, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: [snip] > All I ask is for you to seek the truth I don't need to seek the truth as I have already found it: your God doesn't exist. All *I* ask is for *you* to seek the truth. /Flibble |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 07 07:42PM On 07/03/2018 19:35, Mr Flibble wrote: > I don't need to seek the truth as I have already found it: your God > doesn't exist. > All *I* ask is for *you* to seek the truth. BTW you might think I enjoy these little back and forths but you would be mistaken: they are fucking tedious because you are an obtuse cunt that vomits out the same garbage repeatedly and ignores what people actually say in response. I really wish you would just stop. /Flibble |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 07 12:31PM -0800 On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 2:42:25 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: > BTW you might think I enjoy these little back and forths but you would > be mistaken... The only reason I participate in them is because I hold out hope that you will be saved one day. Your soul is valuable, Leigh. It's why Jesus came to the Earth born as one of us, and not merely as glorified God in all His power and glory, to live as we live, so that He could save us where we were. It's the greatest love story there is. I want you to be a part of His sacrifice and redemption, so that you can be saved. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>: Mar 07 09:27PM >>> kind, you can't sustain a debate, so you spout yet more baseless assertions. >> I don't debate. I teach. > You don't listen to reason. You can't reason a man out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 07 11:12PM On 07/03/2018 20:31, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > all His power and glory, to live as we live, so that He could save us > where we were. It's the greatest love story there is. I want you to be > a part of His sacrifice and redemption, so that you can be saved. Why can't you get it into your thick skull that no matter what words you write; no matter what angle you try and come at; no matter what Bible verses you cite; no matter how many times you rephrase your message it will not make one iota of difference? I AM JUST AS SETTLED AND UNMOVABLE IN MY BELIEFS AS YOU ARE IN YOURS. /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." |
| Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>: Mar 07 08:01PM > with simple preconditions and postconditions such as reading a file > will have dependencies such as what happens if open fails? What > happens if read fails? Sure, but totally orthogonal to my point. (You can make a case that failure cases are covered in post-conditions "Either the file is opened and processed successfully and data returned in return value, or a std::runtime_error is thrown". But as I say, not relevant.) namespace { inline void inner_loop(int ct,int ct2) { for(auto i=0;i<ct;++i) { for(auto j=0;j<ct2;++j) { // inner_workings(); if(condition()) return; } } } void public_func1(int ct,int ct2) { run_loop(ct,ct2); } void public_func2(int ct,int ct2) { void flag = false; for(auto i=0;i < ct; ++i) { for(auto i=0;i < ct; ++i) { inner_loop() if(condition()) { flag = true; break; } } if(flag) break; } } public_func1() and public_func2() are structured differently. One is longer, the other shorter, more elegant modular. I could add plenty more anonymous function calls to public_func1() and their inlined equivalents to public_func2(). More than enough to get me fired. Never the less, their test suites are identical. > Which was one of my (snipped) points! With which I was explicitly agreeing. |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Mar 07 02:54PM -0800 On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 20:06:24 UTC+2, JiiPee wrote: > > experienced programmers rarely use so bad naming. > Good point. So naming like "end_of_all_loops" would surely indicate that > we go down, right? Yes, if the label is where it claims then I see no problem. The goto is very rare in actual code bases so the people who are allergic to whatever usage of it probably became such during seventies or eighties. |
| 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