Thursday, August 9, 2018

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 5 topics

boltar@cylonHQ.com: Aug 09 08:39AM

On Wed, 08 Aug 2018 18:38:33 +0300
 
>> The meaning would be crystal clear to a native english speaker. Perhaps
>> something got lost in translation for you.
 
>You are not going to wiggle out of this, so better stop now.
 
I'm not wriggling, but you seem to be somewhat.
 
 
>No, it's not. In the context of a standardized programming language
>which happens to define "object", object means exactly that and nothing
>else.
 
SO when I refered to classes and objects you thought I was talking about the
C++ definition of class but the CS definition of object? You're an idiot.
boltar@cylonHQ.com: Aug 09 08:48AM

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 17:28:27 +0100
>ignorant of this fact doesn't change anything including your fractal
>wrongness mainly because you are such an obtuse fucker who will not back
>down despite the evidence and admit his mistake.
 
You really need to sort out your tourettes.
 
>use the word "namespace" I was referring to namespaces in general and not
>a C++ namespace: in fact I believe I even mentioned XML namespaces in one
>of my replies.
 
So when caught out you use the old "Oh, but I meant the OTHER definition of
xyz..". Yeah, nice try, doesn't wash.
 
>this thread I think it is safe to continue with the assumption that you
>are fucking clueless.
 
Says the guy who couldn't even put 2+2 together when I posted what was
clearly an encyrption key and even mentioned encryption. "Duh, hey Yogi, that
doesn't look like a uuid! Huh?".
 
>Correcting your vomit replies isn't being defensive it is just being
>helpful to other casual readers of this thread.
>Again I repeat: get a fucking clue you fucktarded cockwomble.
 
Ah , my "vomit" replies, "cockwomble". You really do come across as a arsey
little brat. Coding C++ in 1993? I doubt you were even born then.
 
>So you are just as egregious IRL as you are on the Internet. Thieving scum.
 
Aww, don't be jealous. Just because you're too dumb to have figured it out
yourself :)
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Aug 09 01:23PM +0300


> SO when I refered to classes and objects you thought I was talking about the
> C++ definition of class but the CS definition of object?
 
Look at the name of the newsgroup. If you talk about classes or objects
here then this is about C++ classes and objects, unless clearly stated
otherwise.
boltar@cylonHQ.com: Aug 09 01:14PM

On Thu, 09 Aug 2018 13:23:43 +0300
 
>Look at the name of the newsgroup. If you talk about classes or objects
>here then this is about C++ classes and objects, unless clearly stated
>otherwise.
 
Clang:
 
$ cat t.cc
int main()
{
int i;
i.~int();
return 0;
}
$ c++ t.cc
t.cc:4:5: error: expected a class name after '~' to name a destructor
i.~int();
^
1 error generated.
 
gcc:
$ c++ t.cc
t.cc: In function 'int main()':
t.cc:4: error: expected class-name before 'int'
t.cc:4: error: expected ';' before 'int'
 
Oops. What was it you were saying about simple type instances being objects?
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Aug 09 03:20PM +0200

> t.cc:4: error: expected class-name before 'int'
> t.cc:4: error: expected ';' before 'int'
 
> Oops. What was it you were saying about simple type instances being objects?
 
They are objects. They are not objects of a type which have destructors
that can be called like this.
 
What is your point here - that you would rather argue indefinitely,
making yourself look even more ignorant and pig-headed, than accept you
were wrong about a simple piece of terminology? You've blown this all
completely out of proportion, and you are only making it worse for yourself.
 
You are in a hole. Stop digging, and lets close this thread.
boltar@cylonHQ.com: Aug 09 01:52PM

On Thu, 09 Aug 2018 15:20:47 +0200
>> Oops. What was it you were saying about simple type instances being objects?
 
>They are objects. They are not objects of a type which have destructors
>that can be called like this.
 
Quite, they're not class based objects which is what I was talking about
when I said he didn't know the difference between classes and objects. The
other poster is estonian, English obviously isn't his first language so maybe
he missed that. Whats your excuse?
 
>What is your point here - that you would rather argue indefinitely,
>making yourself look even more ignorant and pig-headed, than accept you
>were wrong about a simple piece of terminology? You've blown this all
 
I'm not wrong.
 
>completely out of proportion, and you are only making it worse for yourself.
 
>You are in a hole. Stop digging, and lets close this thread.
 
I'm not in the hole, I'm standing at the edge looking at the fools who've
fallen into it. Whats it like down there?
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Aug 09 04:57PM +0300

> i.~int();
> ^
> 1 error generated.
 
An int is an object in C++ as defined by C++ standard. This has nothing
to do with the existence of destructors. Consult your C++ textbook about
the language basics, inventing and spreading your own silly fantasies is
not useful for anything.
 
Besides:
 
template<typename T>
void foo() {
T i;
i.~T();
}
 
 
int main() {
foo<int>();
}
 
This compiles fine and shows that object types, including int, are
handled uniformly in C++ where it makes sense and does matter (in
templates).
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Aug 09 05:16PM +0300

> when I said he didn't know the difference between classes and objects. The
> other poster is estonian, English obviously isn't his first language so maybe
> he missed that. Whats your excuse?
 
Boltar, once more I re-post your original statement which introduced the
subject of objects in this thread:
 
"I'm not even sure he understands the difference between a class and an
object in C++."
 
To which Mr Flibble answered:
 
"Ironically your wording reveals your own lack of C++ competence: in C++
an object is a region of storage so whilst an instance of a class is
obviously an object so is an instance of an 'int' or an instance of an
array."
 
To that you responded
 
"Not in C++ it isn't. An object has a specific definition and an "int"
is not an object.",
 
revealing that Mr Flibble was right and you had no clue what is called
object in C++. Hopefully you have by now learned something from this
thread, although you don't want to admit that by some weird reason.
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Aug 09 04:27PM +0200

> when I said he didn't know the difference between classes and objects. The
> other poster is estonian, English obviously isn't his first language so maybe
> he missed that. Whats your excuse?
 
Paavo has an excellent mastery of English.
 
Everyone else here is aware of the use of the word "object" as "instance
of a class type" in many programming languages - equally, we are aware
of the word "object" as (approximately) "identified region of memory
representing some value", as used in C and C++. If you want to use the
word "object" in a C++ discussion, please learn the difference and use
the term appropriately - with qualifications as necessary.
 
The big joke here is you were getting this wrong while gratuitously
insulting a long-term group member who has an excellent grasp of C++ in
theory and in practice. He may be a bit of a potty-mouth, but he has
demonstrated a far greater knowledge of the language than you have.
 
 
>> You are in a hole. Stop digging, and lets close this thread.
 
> I'm not in the hole, I'm standing at the edge looking at the fools who've
> fallen into it. Whats it like down there?
 
When everyone else says something different from you, you've got to ask
yourself - am I so much smarter and more knowledgeable than everyone
else here put together, or could it be that I am wrong?
 
You figure it out.
boltar@cylonHQ.com: Aug 09 02:39PM

On Thu, 09 Aug 2018 16:27:03 +0200
>yourself - am I so much smarter and more knowledgeable than everyone
>else here put together, or could it be that I am wrong?
 
>You figure it out.
 
Most people used to think the world was flat and made in 7 days. Your
point is?
boltar@cylonHQ.com: Aug 09 02:41PM

On Thu, 09 Aug 2018 16:57:28 +0300
 
>This compiles fine and shows that object types, including int, are
>handled uniformly in C++ where it makes sense and does matter (in
>templates).
 
A rather contrived example. The fact is simple types are treated differently
to objects. Its not up for debate.
boltar@cylonHQ.com: Aug 09 02:42PM

On Thu, 09 Aug 2018 17:16:19 +0300
>subject of objects in this thread:
 
>"I'm not even sure he understands the difference between a class and an
>object in C++."
 
As I said, your English comprehension is perhaps lacking and you didn't
get the fact I was comparing a class with a class instance. Next time I'll
be sure to to clarify it just for you. Ok?
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Aug 09 05:52PM +0300

>> object in C++."
 
> As I said, your English comprehension is perhaps lacking and you didn't
> get the fact I was comparing a class with a class instance.
 
Thanks, we all understood perfectly well that you wanted to compare a
class with a class instance. The problem is you used a wrong term, the
term "object" is not synonymous with "class instance" in C++. Mr Flibble
started to nitpick you about that and it went downhill from there for you.
 
> Next time I'll
> be sure to to clarify it just for you. Ok?
 
Does this mean you have learned the difference? Cool!
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Aug 09 05:59PM +0300

>> templates).
 
> A rather contrived example. The fact is simple types are treated differently
> to objects.
 
The instances of simple types *are* objects in C++, so how could they be
treated differently from themselves?
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Aug 09 11:24AM -0400


>> You figure it out.
 
> Most people used to think the world was flat and made in 7 days. Your
> point is?
 
 
Many people still think the world is flat. There's actually this huge
movement by the anti-Christ spirit to infiltrate the church and sow
those seeds of doubt and confusion beginning sometime in 2016. And so
many people today are even buying into it.
 
But, the world was made in seven days. Literal 24-hour days. It is
as is recorded in Genesis 1-3.
 
There really is evidence for the things of the Bible. Archaeological
evidence. Genetics evidence. Fossil record evidence.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 09 05:00PM +0100

On 09/08/2018 16:24, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> movement by the anti-Christ spirit to infiltrate the church and sow
> those seeds of doubt and confusion beginning sometime in 2016.  And so
> many people today are even buying into it.
 
Who cares about what is upsetting the god botherers? I certainly don't care.
 
 
> But, the world was made in seven days.  Literal 24-hour days.  It is
> as is recorded in Genesis 1-3.
 
Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
 
 
> There really is evidence for the things of the Bible.  Archaeological
> evidence.  Genetics evidence.  Fossil record evidence.
 
There is no evidence that Genesis is true and there is no evidence that
your assertion that there is is true so that assertion can also be
summarily dismissed.
 
#atheism
 
/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."
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Aug 09 11:26AM -0700

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 12:00:25 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> your assertion that there is is true so that assertion can also be
> summarily dismissed.
 
> #atheism
 
Your flesh won't want to read this. You'll gloss over it with an
annoying "tl;dr" response. But if you bypass that attitude and
seek to expand yourself beyond your confined self-belief-dominion,
then you will learn something.
 
-----
What you speak of is in the flesh, Leigh. There is no evidence
in the flesh that anything I claim is true. There is evidence,
however, if you look at it that way, which the flesh cannot do.
But by the spirit, the evidence is everywhere. And to be truthful,
even your flesh knows it's true because God put His stamp on your
creation, but in your sin and rebellion you deny the truth, so you
discount it by a conscious effort.
 
The thing you must understand is God is not flesh. He is spirit.
And for those who will be saved, their personal existence will be
changed and augmented beyond just flesh into both flesh + spirit.
John 3 describes this. When that happens, you are then aware of
things you could not be aware of before. You can hear God's guid-
ance, and not as a literal voice, but as your new sense guides you
from within. It's like how your eyes give you different input than
your ears. Now your spirit gives you different input than your
flesh.
 
-----
It is the spirit that affirms the things the flesh cannot know.
And it's why you are absolutely resolute in your belief that you
are right, just as I was before I was saved, because in my flesh
I knew I was right. I knew there could be no God. And I knew I
couldn't be wrong. Period and paragraph. End of discussion.
 
But... what I was not prepared for was the change that comes
when I sought the truth with a serious seeking, and God knew
I was seeking the truth and He brought it to me, and me to it.
Then my spiritual eyes were opened and then I was able to know
the things you could not know before.
 
It still, to this day some 14+ years later, astounds me daily,
because God never leaves you or abandons you.
 
Amazing Grace:
 
"I once was lost, but now am found.
Was blind, but now I see."
 
Those words convey this concept completely.
 
-----
Go to your local churches and speak to people who are born
again. Ask them for true born again believers who can give
you testimony about the changes the've had in their lives.
 
There's someone named Dawn Martin there in England in London
who you could speak to. She could teach you personally.
And there are countless others.
 
Pick some and go speak to them and listen to them, not me,
and see if they don't teach you the same things I'm teaching
you.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 09 08:22PM +0100

On 09/08/2018 19:26, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> summarily dismissed.
 
>> #atheism
 
> Your flesh won't want to read this. You'll gloss over it with an
[snip]
 
tl;dr.
 
#atheism
 
/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."
christiano@engineer.com: Aug 09 05:27AM -0700

For example:
 
//--------------------- a.cpp ------------------------
 
#include <iostream>
 
#ifdef TEST1
 
inline int fac(int n)
{
return n<2? 1 : n*fac(n-1);
}
 
#else
 
constexpr int fac(int n)
{
return n<2? 1 : n*fac(n-1);
}
 
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)