- Conservative employees "don't feel safe" - 5 Updates
- The newbie struggles with C++ - 1 Update
- Signed unsigned mismatch? - 11 Updates
- The C++ pronunciation dictionary, version 1.0 - 2 Updates
- "My CppCon 2018 talk title and abstract" 2018-09-14 by Herb - 4 Updates
- Multi-compare operators - 1 Update
- int8_t and char - 1 Update
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 19 09:38AM -0400 On 9/19/2018 9:24 AM, David Brown wrote: > It is circular logic because it goes around in a circle. That does not > mean it is not true, of course - it just means there is no independent > evidence. The evidence you do not see comes from the change when your spirit is made alive. As such, the evidence you are missing comes from a place outside of your ability to understand, just as a blind person cannot know what it's like to see if their eyes have never worked. You and Ian (and countless other billions literally) are those people who are spiritually blind. You are there by your own choices because you will not accept that something outside of your existing belief exists, and you will not believe a man like Jesus could exist who could take your sin away, and you will believe the people who have done bad things under the color / banner of "Jesus Christ" are how it really is, rather than believing they also were deceived, and there really is a proper way to approach and follow God which does not involve heinous things. Until you are willing to seek the truth, David, you will never be able to see it, and you will be forever hidden from it. It is the hard division between the saved and the unsaved. And many who, today, believe they are saved, are going to be stunned to find out on that final day they were not saved, because they did not do the will of the Father, but only had religion and a slight resem- blance of the qualities which make a true believer a true believer (and that equates exactly to the change which comes when you are born again of the spirit when your sin is forgiven, it is a total and fundamental change that alters you forever from that point for- ward). -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 19 11:21AM -0400 On 9/19/2018 11:09 AM, David Brown wrote: > In other words, it is all circular logic - you can only see this > "evidence" once you believe in your god. As I said, that does not mean > it is not true, but it means you cannot demonstrate it to anyone else. I've tried to teach it to people this way, and some of them have been able to understand it. Suppose a blind person is taken to a room with comfortable chairs, nice carpet, a good temperature, the room has a nice sound to it, a good smell, etc. The blind person might really love that room. In fact, it may be one of their favorite places. Now suppose they go in for a new experimental surgery on their eyes, one which not only repairs the damage to the eyes so they can see, but also imparts the neural network patterns into their vision center so they can understand what they see the moment they awake from surgery. This person gets the surgery and it's a success. They are so happy. They go back to that room they used to love, but now they are able to see it has photos of war, of death, of heinous things all over the walls. When they couldn't see, they didn't know what was there all the time before them. They were only using their other senses to enjoy the room. But now that their eyes are in working order, they can see the pictures of death and they can no longer stay in that room. That's what happens to a person in this world when they have their sin forgiven by Jesus and are born again of the new spirit nature. Their spirit comes alive, and they now "see" things they could not see before, in the very things they used to be a part of, and it drives them to change their ways. > [snip synopsis on Jesus] When your spirit eyes are turned on after you come to Jesus, ask forgiveness for sin, and are born again ... then come back to me and re-read your synopsis and give me your own personal assessment of it. You'll find how deep the infiltration of evil spirit false guidance goes. And you'll be like everyone I know who is born again: they can't believe how depraved they were, and it tears/rips them up inside about how they hurt the Lord for all those years with their rebellion and hate. Jesus is worthy of giving Him our best and honoring Him with our lives, of being obedient to His teachings and pur- suing others in this world likewise. The things here do not matter. What matters is that we first secure our future with Him, and then go forth and do the things. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 19 11:42AM -0400 On 9/19/2018 11:09 AM, David Brown wrote: > Jesus and that side of him - that is critical to their faith. But I > also expect modern day Christians to be followers of his moral > philosophy - tolerance, love, respect, forgiveness. You're conflating two aspects of Jesus. 1) When Jesus came to the Earth, He came as a Savior. He came to reach out to people and guide them and to go to the cross and pay the price for sin. This was a full outreach and teaching ministry, but He did do His part to set us free from sin by taking on our sin at the cross. But that's not the end of it, David. He's coming back. 2) When Jesus returns, it will be wrath outpoured. It will be judgment without mercy to all who have rejected His free offer of salvation. It's judgment and wrath poured out against sin and those embracing sin. Jesus was incredibly intolerant. He was forgiving and full of grace, but He made it absolutely clear at every point that a person's sin will condemn their soul to Hell. ----- In addition, Jesus' guidance wasn't in the Old Testament. He had not yet been given that name (Yeshua is the real name, and it means "God who saves."). He had not yet been revealed as Jesus during that time. One night He wrestled with Jacob all night, and Jacob would not let Him go and demanded to know who He was, but He would not reveal who He was for His time had not yet come. He touched Jacob's hip and damaged it before letting Him go. God's Holy Spirit is at work in all of the people who wrote the Bible from the first page of the Old Testament to the last page of the New Testament. He's at work in Moses, in David, in Isaiah, in Paul, Peter, John, etc. He works by the spirit through the flesh of those people, guiding their flesh by His spirit guiding their spirit. > When someone is > missing those aspects in their life - such as by their condemnation of You're confusing tolerance of sin with acceptance of sin. Christians tolerate people's sin, but we teach against it because we teach the same things Jesus taught, that having unforgiven sin condemns a person's soul to Hell for all eternity. > teachings of Jesus. That person is not being a good Christian, no > matter how often they read the Bible or how often they claim to be > teaching others about god. It's not bigotry or hatred to tell people in sin that they are in sin and that they will enter into Hell unless they repent. That is the /TRUEST/ form of love there is, because /WE CARE/ enough about them to teach them the truth, rather than to go along with their folly until they die and then face judgment. God even teaches us in the Bible to warn people, and that if we don't warn them then they will die in their sin, and their sin will also be charged to us because we /FAILED/ to warn them. > If /you/ want to be a good Christian...[snip] You do not know things rightly, David. You are giving me the enemy's advice given to you, spoken through your lips / mind / keyboard, to the people before you. All I can tell you is there's an active enemy spirit at work in your flesh leading you to falseness. God's Holy Spirit can set you free from that bondage ... /IF/ you will receive it. No one can force you. We can only tell you the truth and point you to Him. Whether you will receive it or not is not our re- sponsibility, but only to teach you the truth as accurately as we're able. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| bitrex <user@example.net>: Sep 19 12:00PM -0400 On 09/19/2018 11:09 AM, David Brown wrote: > If /you/ want to be a good Christian - and be a good follower of Jesus > as portrayed in the OT - you need to be asking yourself if you actually > are following his philosophy and his teaching. I consider myself a Christian now. I wasn't before. But naturally I'm still damned (even worse than before I guess) according to our friend because I'm not the right _kind_ of Christian or I don't understand the _correct_ truth. It's all endless goalpost-shifting with these folks. I don't think they want to "save" anyone they just like to argue. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 19 12:04PM -0400 On 9/19/2018 12:00 PM, bitrex wrote: > not the right _kind_ of Christian or I don't understand the _correct_ truth. > It's all endless goalpost-shifting with these folks. I don't think they want > to "save" anyone they just like to argue. Show me where I've argued with anyone in these threads, and I'll publicly apologize. At each point I have met the place where they were with a teaching back to scripture, back to the true teachings of Christ, while say- ing "go to the Bible and see for yourself, go to local Bible-be- lieving churches and speak to born again people there for yourself." I do not argue with people. I teach. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram): Sep 19 03:58PM >Subject: Re: The newbie struggles with C++ (To the author of the subject line, not directly responding to Bo:) Do not despair! It's still simpler than Python. |we found that the learning curve for Python students was not eased; |in fact, Python students had significantly higher struggle |rates than C++ students (26% for Python vs. 13% for C++). dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3160586 |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 19 09:33AM -0400 On 9/19/2018 9:21 AM, David Brown wrote: >> and auto-injects that code for you. > In programming, you spend a fraction of your time writing - and a lot > more time reading. It does not help me if /I/ choose not to use casks, In CAlive, you can look at the C code the RDC compiler generates from the CAlive code. It's a Ctrl+Alt+Right operation in the GUI editor. You can also hit Ctrl+Alt+Right again and see the B code, and Ctrl+Alt+Right again and see the assembly, and then go back again. It's a "traipsing through the <strike>tulips</strike>code" ex- perience. For real, David, you don't have CAlive in front of you. You do not know its capabilities, but have only seen snippets of its capabilities likely mis-translated by what I intended to mean in what I wrote, and what you believed it to mean when you read it back. Until you see it, you're only making yourself look like a fool by summarily discounting the things I've considered greatly, because you do not give my consideration any degree of weight. >> have to be specified individually on a command line, but a single >> file with options is provided. > That is completely missing the point. I understood your point. I think your viewpoint is wrong, because I think compiler switches exist for a reason and they are to be employed properly. In a shop, you could rebuild an engine with a torque wrench and an impact wrench. You grab the wrong tool and you'll snap the bolts off when you go to tighten them. The proper tool for the proper job, sir. We're not in the business of hand-holding developers. We're in the business of well-equipping them to thrive. >> I do not know this. You often give out bad advice. > I am sure I have been wrong on occasion - but I have never knowingly > given bad advice. You confuse "does not agree with Rick" with "bad". No, I don't. I know there are legitimate points of disagree- ment, but there are also times you give out bad advice because you do not know the other facets of CAlive I have already con- sidered. You're using a peephole window looking at something large and concluding there are wrong aspects of its design be- cause you haven't yet seen the whole thing and can't envision it. Wait until CAlive is released before discrediting its features. It is an integrated design of immense complexity and size. I estimate it will take some time to truly appreciate ... even for me and I wrote it (from that timeframe's point of view). > variations of C. There are often disagreements there too. But I like > to think that he knows my advice is given with the best of intentions > and based on my knowledge and experience, even when we disagree. I think the problem here is this is a C forum, and you're giving advice based on how C does things. I'll see about starting up a CAlive forum. There is already a Google Group. I'll start up another one for general discus- sion and posting. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| boltar@cylonHQ.com: Sep 19 01:39PM On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 09:04:03 -0400 >CAlive uses promotion on nearly every calculation. It sign- What is this CAlive compiler/language, something you wrote? Nothing's coming up in Google. Got a link? |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 19 09:45AM -0400 >> CAlive uses promotion on nearly every calculation. It sign- > What is this CAlive compiler/language, something you wrote? Nothing's coming > up in Google. Got a link? It's a compiler being developed. You can read about its features here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/caliveprogramminglanguage It has a planned release date of sometime around Christmas 2019. Some backstory: I came to this C group back in 2014 wanting some changes to C. I wanted C to add the basic class, to allow for exceptions, and I had several new ideas that could be added to the language. I fought for a couple years to try and get people on board with the idea of tweaking the language, and was shot down coldly and flatly at all points. So, in late 2015 I decided to begin making my own language that would have the features I want. I've been working on it ever since, and plan to have a version 0.x released around Christmas 2019, with a true 1.0 stable release some- time in 2020. We'll see though. I have many things pulling at my time, and I cannot code as fast as I used to. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| boltar@cylonHQ.com: Sep 19 02:28PM On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 09:45:05 -0400 >It's a compiler being developed. You can read about its >features here: > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/caliveprogramminglanguage Looks interesting. >Some backstory: I came to this C group back in 2014 wanting >some changes to C. I wanted C to add the basic class, to Perhaps comp.lang.c would have been better then rather than comp.lang.c++ >I fought for a couple years to try and get people on board >with the idea of tweaking the language, and was shot down >coldly and flatly at all points. Clearly you didn't pray hard enough ;) >time in 2020. >We'll see though. I have many things pulling at my time, >and I cannot code as fast as I used to. Well good luck, but The Next C/C++ market is a crowded one. You're competing against D, Rust, Swift and Go just of the top of my head, not to mention Java and C#. |
| jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu: Sep 19 07:35AM -0700 On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 2:49:10 PM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > What a surprise. > Wow. Really? Seriously, James ... don't you think > they got it wrong too? No, I don't think there's any unique "right" approach. Every approach has problems, it's just a matter of choosing which set of problems you prefer. I know the reasons the committee gave for their choice, and those reasons point out a real problem with the unsigned preserving rules. It's a judgement call whether those problems are more important than the problems that value-preserving rules cause. They may have gotten that judgement call wrong - but it was a judgement call made by a large diverse group containing both implementors and users of C. You've made it clear that you find the C standard nearly impenetrable, whereas they were the people who wrote it - I think you can safely assume that every single committee member had a much better understanding of the C standard than you do. So you should give serious consideration to the possibility that it's your judgement that's in error, rather than theirs. In any event, it's a decision that was made 3 decades ago, and never reversed, and huge amounts of code have been written that depends upon that decision. The committee considers backwards compatibility to be sufficiently important that it's unlikely to ever reverse that decision. Therefore, my primary concern is understanding the rule, not figuring out whether a different rule would be better. > It seems the UNIX folk thought it was a mistake, as > they already had invested code and developer time in > the other direction. However, also notice that they didn't object strongly to the decision, and promptly re-designed their compilers to support the committee's decision. ... > I don't even see a good argument for C's logic, other > than that's the way some people were doing it. So, you don't understand why anyone might have a problem with the way the following code (from the C FAQ, 3.19) would be handled under unsigned-preserving rules? unsigned short us = 10; int i = -5; if(i > us) printf("whoops!\n"); |
| jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu: Sep 19 07:39AM -0700 On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 3:45:10 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote: ... > With hindsight, in the modern C world, signedness preserving promotion > would be better for many people - I would prefer it myself. Actually, I Note: the usual term was "unsigned preserving", correctly reflecting the fact that the rules were biased toward unsigned: they said that a + b must be unsigned if either a or b is unsigned. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 19 10:41AM -0400 >> Some backstory: I came to this C group back in 2014 wanting >> some changes to C. I wanted C to add the basic class, to > Perhaps comp.lang.c would have been better then rather than comp.lang.c++ I post on both. Also comp.std.c back in the day. >> with the idea of tweaking the language, and was shot down >> coldly and flatly at all points. > Clearly you didn't pray hard enough ;) "No" is one of God's answers to prayer. Some others are: "yes," "not yet," and "not this, but wait and see because I have something else in mind for you." I think CAlive as part of that "not this..." response when I came here in 2014. If I had met with reception, even with some partial reception, I probably never would've written CAlive. > Well good luck, but The Next C/C++ market is a crowded one. You're competing > against D, Rust, Swift and Go just of the top of my head, not to mention Java > and C#. Thank you for your encouragement. It's pretty rare to hear any positive things about CAlive. Most people feel more comfortable attacking it, bashing it, attacking me, bashing me, etc. But, I'm not writing CAlive specifically for other people. I'm writing it for God, for me to use next, and for other people to use last. I want to honor God with my time, my labor, and the abilities He first gave me. I'm writing CAlive to be a Christian offering unto God from inception. It's not just to be another language. I want to give back to God fruit from the natural talents and abilities He first gave me. I want my life on this Earth to be a re- flection of His Son living within me, that I may return to Him something of what He first gave me, and explicitly to Him by name, by reference, by praise, by adoration, in love, in thanksgiving. My goal is to first honor Him with this work, and to give it to other people who would like to use a tool that's been lifted up to Him throughout its design in prayer, in seeking to please Him, rather than simply being written and maintained by people who have the ability, but who do not directly honor God with their lives. For people who want a purified, sanctified tool to use, one they can be proud to support in their faith because those who will work on it from the beginning through to the end will be doing so because they want to honor Jesus Christ with their lives. It's also a teaching tool, to show people that they too can honor God with their skills and talents in this world, and even as a forefront, first-level offering, out there, visible to all, and it will not only succeed with endurance and patience, but it will be a huge blessing to many people to give the fruits of their labor over to Him and them in that way. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 19 10:49AM -0400 >> they got it wrong too? > No, I don't think there's any unique "right" approach. Every approach has problems, it's just a matter of choosing which set of problems you prefer. I know the reasons the committee gave for their choice, and those reasons point out a real problem with the unsigned preserving rules. It's a judgement call whether those problems are more important than the problems that value-preserving rules cause. They may have gotten that judgement call wrong - but it was a judgement call made by a large diverse group containing both implementors and users of C. You've made it clear that you find the C standard nearly impenetrable, whereas they were the people who wrote it - I think you can safely assume that every single committee member had a much better understanding of the C standard than you do. So you should give serious consideration to the possibility that it's your judgement that's in error, rather than theirs. > In any event, it's a decision that was made 3 decades ago, and never reversed, and huge amounts of code have been written that depends upon that decision. The committee considers backwards compatibility to be sufficiently important that it's unlikely to ever reverse that decision. Therefore, my primary concern is understanding the rule, not figuring out whether a different rule would be better. The only way CAlive will ever support C90 and C99 compliance is if someone comes on board who understands all that stuff and gives me a list of changes that need to be made, or a list of rules which need to be followed. I will never be able to read the C Standard document and de- cipher its nuances sufficiently to approach it. My brain simply does not work that way. >> they already had invested code and developer time in >> the other direction. > However, also notice that they didn't object strongly to the decision, and promptly re-designed their compilers to support the committee's decision. I bet many of them did. :-) But you cannot fight against the C committee. It's like trying to strike the wind. It just ignores your efforts and laughs at your wasted expenditure of energy ... at least that's been my experience. > int i = -5; > if(i > us) > printf("whoops!\n"); Promotion to signed in this case is proper, because when you're dealing with signed / unsigned operators, you have to promote to signed values. That is a natural thing to do. It's in the cases where you have unsigned lesser size to unsigned: unsigned char a = 3, b = 3, c = 3; unsigned int d = 10; if (a + b + c < d) printf("Go go Gadget Promotion!\n"); The "a + b + c" should not be promoted to a signed value. That's where the C committee got it wrong. Since the operator is unsigned it should've been promoted to unsigned, and when the unsigned pro- motion reached the < operator, it should've then looked at the RHS value and determined if another promotion to signed was required. I don't see how anyone can find fault with that logic, save from the one perspective that it's the way C works today, and therefore it's wrong from that one perspective. In any event, CAlive will reverse that decision made by the C committee some 30+ years ago. Dare I to be so bold? Why yes, yes I do dare. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu: Sep 19 08:38AM -0700 On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 10:49:54 AM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: ... > I will never be able to read the C Standard document and de- > cipher its nuances sufficiently to approach it. My brain > simply does not work that way. Your comment above probably has a lot to do with the experience you describe below: > C committee. It's like trying to strike the wind. It just > ignores your efforts and laughs at your wasted expenditure of > energy ... at least that's been my experience. People capable of understanding the standard generally get much better results when they propose changes to it than those who do not - which strikes me as both eminently reasonable, and positively desirable. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 19 11:43AM -0400 > People capable of understanding the standard generally get much better > results when they propose changes to it than those who do not - which > strikes me as both eminently reasonable, and positively desirable. I have no doubts. My approach is not commensurate with the needs of the people in the C committee, and I was told that by many people during that time in 2014/2015. You may have been one of them. It's not the way I work, so modifying C is not within my ability. As such ... CAlive. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>: Sep 19 04:50PM +0100 > C committee. It's like trying to strike the wind. It just > ignores your efforts and laughs at your wasted expenditure of > energy ... at least that's been my experience. What experience have you had interacting with WG14 (the ISO C committee)? I was not aware that you'd had any dealings with the committee at all. I'd be interested to know what happened. (I've set followup-to: comp.lang.c since this is a C matter not a C++ one.) -- Ben. |
| Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu>: Sep 19 07:29AM -0700 > You're wasting your time. People can pronounce the words in any > way they think fit and some people will try to correct them but it > is futile IMO. I took this to say only which pronunciation is given, not that the stated pronunciations are "correct". He may be trying to give what he believes are the most common pronunciations in cases where there is more than one (ie, even within American English), but in any case just his best understanding, or at least that is my impression. > For example "Router" is pronounced differently in USA and > England. Some observations about American English. (My native language is American English.) Used as a noun, "route" is to some extent regional: in some places "root" is more common, in other places "rowt" is more common. I believe either pronunciation will be understood in most of the US, with "root" perhaps being more common. Used as an adjective, my impression is "root" is much more common. Used as a verb, "route" is usually like "rowt": we talk about "rowting" a packet, not "rooting" a packet. (Incidentally this also removes ambiguity with respect to the word 'root', in the sense of superuser.) So it is natural to call something that decides where to send different packets a "rowter" than it would be to call it a "rooter". The word "rooter" tends to conjure up images of cleaning sewer drains. All of the above just my personal observations, nothing official. > Also Linux or pronounced differently. I have heard that Linus Thorvalds pronounces "Linux" with a short i, like the word "in", and so that's how I pronounce it. (Also I put the emphasis on the first syllable, LINux, with the 'u' being pronounced kind of half way between a short i, like the i in 'sticks', and a short u, like the u in 'clucks'. It may be that one or both of these derive from the same source where I read that LT uses a short i sound; I think at least one of them does, but I don't remember for sure.) |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 19 05:15PM +0200 On 19/09/18 16:29, Tim Rentsch wrote: > be to call it a "rooter". The word "rooter" tends to conjure up > images of cleaning sewer drains. > All of the above just my personal observations, nothing official. I haven't heard any difference in pronunciation between the verb and the noun "route" amongst Americans - I have only heard them say "rowt". But as an American, you have vastly more experience of listening to Americans than I do as a Scot. So it is interesting to hear your observations here. > may be that one or both of these derive from the same source > where I read that LT uses a short i sound; I think at least > one of them does, but I don't remember for sure.) Yes, that is correct. The pronunciation of Linux comes from his name - in Finland, it is, as you say, pronounced with an "i" like in "in". I gather Americans sometimes pronounce the name with "i" like in "eye", but I would say the "correct" pronunciation of the name Linus, and thus Linux, should follow the Finnish version. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 19 12:14PM +0200 > If only I had my violin with me.... > I bet you were the sort of kid who burst into tears and ran to teacher as > soon as anyone called you a name. Oh, I made jokes and laughed as much as anyone. That does not make it a good thing, and I'm glad my kids are growing up in a world that takes a different view. >> So if the idiotic name-calling was /not/ your fault, whose was it? > You're assuming I was at fault in the first place. Sometimes insults are > required. Insults were not required - they were not remotely justified. They are just unpleasant for everyone. I don't imagine for a minute that Ian felt hurt by your post - no one takes you seriously. But that does not mean people are happy to see you souring the atmosphere. |
| boltar@cylonHQ.com: Sep 19 10:23AM On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 12:14:44 +0200 >Oh, I made jokes and laughed as much as anyone. That does not make it a >good thing, and I'm glad my kids are growing up in a world that takes a >different view. Yeah, we can all see the success of that with Generation Snowflake and their safe spaces. You need a few knocks in life to mentally toughen you up. >just unpleasant for everyone. I don't imagine for a minute that Ian >felt hurt by your post - no one takes you seriously. But that does not >mean people are happy to see you souring the atmosphere. You the groups white knight then, vanguishing injustice when you see it? LOL :) |
| Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu>: Sep 19 02:54PM >>managed languages with good string support and with standard >>libraries for handling network protocols of all sorts. > And they can be more easily sandboxed and restricted. I don't know about PHP, but sandboxed, restricted Python doesn't exist. It might be easier to sandbox than C++ theoretically, but nevertheless efforts in that direction haven't yet succeeded. -- Neil Cerutti |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Sep 19 03:12PM >I don't know about PHP, but sandboxed, restricted Python doesn't >exist. It might be easier to sandbox than C++ theoretically, but >nevertheless efforts in that direction haven't yet succeeded. One can always run it in a container. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 19 11:01AM -0400 Can anyone think of a reason why this type of operation shouldn't be a valid syntax in a (C/C++)-like lanuage, added to that new language with these features: if (a <= b < c) printf("b is [a, c)\n"); if (a < b <= c) printf("b is (a, c]\n"); if (a < b < c) printf("b is (a, c)\n"); And even these: if (a < b < c < d) prinf("b is (a, c)\nc is (b, d)\n"); if (a < b < c < d < e) prinf("b is (a, c)\nc is (b, d)\nd is (c, e)\n"); Et cetera... Each evaluated left-to-right. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu: Sep 19 07:01AM -0700 On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 9:13:49 AM UTC-4, Tim Rentsch wrote: > types/. > (The /'s indicate italics in the original, signifying a > definition of the italicized term.) 123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012 While your answer is pedantically correct (and I therefore strongly approve of it), character types are primarily small integer types as far as the language proper (section 6 of the standard) is concerned; the main difference from other types is that an array of character type can be initialized using a string literal. Most of the specifically "character" semantics are implemented by standard library routines. |
| 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