Thursday, September 20, 2018

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 13 updates in 6 topics

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>: Sep 20 06:21PM -0500

"Modern C++ Features – Quality-of-Life Features" by Arne Mertz
https://arne-mertz.de/2018/09/quality-of-life-features/
 
"The use of 'override' has definitely improved my Quality Of Life 🙂"
 
Yup.
 
Lynn
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Sep 21 10:25AM +1200

On 21/09/18 10:21, Stefan Ram wrote:
> I suspect that the size of »int« (and of »long« and other types)
> is implementation-defined.
 
> But does the standard say so explicitly?
 
The standard states a minimum range, so I'd argue this is equivalent to
saying the size is implementation defined.
 
--
Ian.
"Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Sep 21 12:39AM +0200

On 21.09.2018 00:25, Ian Collins wrote:
 
>>    But does the standard say so explicitly?
 
> The standard states a minimum range, so I'd argue this is equivalent to
> saying the size is implementation defined.
 
It refers to the C standard. And although it states that the C standard
is "incorporated" into the C++ standard, that part of the C++ standard
is inexplicably non-normative text. It's like someone's played politics.
 
 
Cheers!,
 
- Alf
bitrex <user@example.net>: Sep 20 07:16PM -0400

On 09/20/2018 06:39 PM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> is inexplicably non-normative text. It's like someone's played politics.
 
> Cheers!,
 
> - Alf
 
Prostitution was legal in Rhode Island from circa late 1970s to 2009
because the state legislature accidentally forgot to make it explicitly
illegal.
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 20 05:39PM -0400

On 9/20/2018 3:43 AM, David Brown wrote:
> [snip]
 
An 8-minute 40,000 foot flyover describing how the Bible, and
specifically the New Testament, is put together ... it all is
the story of man's failure, and God rescuing man by becoming
one of us, saving us, and restoring us to what He had in mind
before sin entered in and destroyed everything:
 
The New Testament
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0BrP8bqj0c
 
There are a details missing in this 40,000 foot flyover, but
the general tone and feel is explained sufficiently to give
those who have not read the Bible a general idea of what is
going on inside the pages, and inside the various books and
sub-stories written within.
 
Why does God take all of our 6,000 year history to explain
this story? Why are we now (at the end) just beginning to
be able to see it all come together?
 
It explains the nature of God, and His from-the-beginning
plan for man. He's outside of time, and He's restoring us
to that outside-of-time existence as well.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 21 12:00AM +0100

On 20/09/2018 22:39, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> It explains the nature of God, and His from-the-beginning
> plan for man.  He's outside of time, and He's restoring us
> to that outside-of-time existence as well.
 
Nothing but numerous assertions without evidence which can be summarily
dismissed with evidence. Now fuck off.
 
/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."
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 20 09:39PM +0200

On 20/09/18 16:59, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> it differently except for comic effect.
 
> Python is different because there's a word "pyton" for the snakes, and
> because Monty Python got local pronounciation back in the 70s.
 
(I am Scottish, but live and work in Norway.)
 
"Pyton" is a Norwegian word too (and as well as the snakes, it means
something like "horrible" as well). But I have not heard anyone
pronounce the programming language Python as "peetun". Mind you, our
programming group is very international, so we use English pronunciation
more than Norwegian versions.
 
And I haven't heard "Monty Python" pronounced "Monty Pyton", except
perhaps for comic effect.
 
(Fun fact, which I am sure Jorgen knows already - Monty Python's "The
Life of Brian" was originally banned in Norway, as the last usage of our
old blasphemy laws. So it was marketed in Sweden as "The film that is
so funny it was banned in Norway". It was eventually released here, but
with an 18 age limit!)
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Sep 20 07:12PM +0300

On 20.09.2018 18:43, Bart wrote:
 
>> Python is different because there's a word "pyton" for the snakes, and
>> because Monty Python got local pronounciation back in the 70s.
 
> That doesn't stop Americans pronouncing it as PyTHON.
 
Sorry, this is not helpful, I still have no idea how Americans pronounce
it, or how they ought to pronounce it.
 
I'm constantly baffled why people are trying to clarify pronunciation of
a nonphonemic orthography by using the same nonphonemic orthography.
Maybe somebody could write down some variants of "Python" in IPA?
 
For example, "python" (as the snake) is in Estonian written "püüton" and
pronounced "py:ton".
Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de>: Sep 20 10:58PM +0200

Am 20.09.18 um 18:12 schrieb Paavo Helde:
> Maybe somebody could write down some variants of "Python" in IPA?
 
> For example, "python" (as the snake) is in Estonian written "püüton" and
> pronounced "py:ton".
 
Yes, this is really astonishing to me, too. English is very ill-suited
to describe spelling, yet this so-called "re-spelling" is even the
default for some online dictionaries instead of IPA :wow:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciation_respelling_for_English
 
But maybe for European speakers it's easier to learn IPA, because the
spelling system of most languages except French and English is quite
close to IPA.
 
Christian
Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de>: Sep 20 11:08PM +0200


> Section 2.2.1: Stacks, Queues, and Deques
 
> "A deque ... has some properties in common with a deck of cards,
> and it is pronounced the same way."
 
OK, DK pronounces it as "deck" - but the argument doesn't convince me. A
deck of cards would remind me of a stack structure, you can put a card
on top and remove it, but how would I remove from the other end? Or is
it thought that we have two stacks, which can be used to simulate a dequeue?
 
Christian
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>: Sep 20 03:41PM -0700

On 9/20/2018 2:08 PM, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
 
> OK, DK pronounces it as "deck" - but the argument doesn't convince me. A
> deck of cards would remind me of a stack structure, you can put a card
> on top and remove it, but how would I remove from the other end?
 
One can use a tail index to automatically find the end. Remove the card
by decrementing the tail.
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram): Sep 20 10:21PM

I suspect that the size of »int« (and of »long« and other types)
is implementation-defined.
 
But does the standard say so explicitly?
 
I look at n4762 6.7.1 Fundamental types [basic.fundamental] p2:
»Plain ints have the natural size suggested by the
architecture of the execution environment; the other
signed integer types are provided to meet special needs.«.
 
Sure, this is all fine and well. But I was hoping for a
sentence like: »The range of the values of the type int
is implementation-defined.«
 
The "C standard" N2176 says in 5.2.4.2.1 Sizes of integer
types <limits.h> about values like »INT_MIN«:
 
|Their implementation-defined values shall be equal or greater
|in magnitude (absolute value) to those shown, with the same sign.
 
So, there it is! "implementation-defined". But in the C norm.
 
When C++ n4762 says,
 
|16.3.1 General [support.limits.general]
|The headers <limits> (16.3.2), <climits> (16.3.5), and
|<cfloat> (16.3.6) supply characteristics of implementation-
|dependent arithmetic types (6.7.1).
 
, maybe it wants to inherit this specification
("implementation-defined") from C?
 
So does this suffice? Can we now say that
INT_MIN is implementation-defined in C++?
 
And note yet another term as quoted above:
"implementation-dependent"! Here "-dependent"
might not be defined before but just have its common
English meaning. But it does have an index entry:
"implementation-dependent, 370, 452, 1181, 1191".
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 20 08:22AM -0400

On 9/20/2018 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> implementation defined, so after much heated arguments, they decided on
> the current rule, over the objections of some of the members of the
> community.
 
I've been trying to think of what the advantages would be with a
promotion to signed, and I'm not seeing it ... unless the operator
it's going to be working with is also signed. But in a straight-
forward unsigned to unsigned comparison, such as the one I had
which flagged this question in the first place ... I cannot see
it.
 
I would argue the C committee didn't do what they should've. They
should've modified the standard to allow unsigned promotion for
all unsigned values, and then only promote to signed when the op
on the other side requires it.
 
And I honestly can't think of a reason why that's not the only
logical choice. I'd be open to hearing some reasons.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
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)