Tuesday, November 13, 2018

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 21 updates in 6 topics

Jeff-Relf.Me @.: Nov 13 03:25PM -0800

Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Nov 14 01:23AM +0200

On 13.11.2018 23:56, Stefan Ram wrote:
> |an expression (that is, if the result is not mathematically
> |defined or not in the range of representable values for its
> |type), the behavior is undefined.
 
The above statement is about expressions, not about the math library
function calls. It looks like the C standard makes a difference here.
 
The C standard contains:
 
"The behavior of each of the functions in <math.h> is specified
for all representable values of its input arguments, except where
stated otherwise."
 
"For all functions, a domain error occurs if an input argument is
outside the domain over which the mathematical function is defined."
 
"On a domain error, the function returns an implementation-defined
value".
 
So to me it looks like pow(0,0) is already implementation-defined in C
and the C++ standard just repeats that for clarity in the complex pow()
section.
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>: Nov 13 03:00PM -0800

On 10/13/2018 8:40 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
 
>> https://plus.google.com/101799841244447089430/posts/hhVMw7eB2fx
 
>> They kind of look like some strange simulated Hubble images.
 
> Each pixel in the rendering is infinite.
 
Strange alien like face:
 
https://plus.google.com/101799841244447089430/posts/fWM7YuabUxQ
 
;^)
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Nov 13 09:23AM -0800

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 11:22:36 AM UTC-5, Daniel wrote:
 
> > The virgin birth is an absolutely essential part of ... Christianity
 
> Do you really think so? Apart from the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke,
> the New Testament makes no further mention of it, nor does St Paul. And the scholars suggests that virgin is most likely a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for young woman. Of course, it became important in later Christian orthodoxy.
 
The term "virgin" was used for an unmarried person, whereas
today it only refers to someone who has not yet had sex. Back
then, people didn't have sex until marriage, and thus the two
were interchangeable.
 
The virgin birth is absolutely essential. It was foretold in
the Old Testament, and it is explained in the New Testament by
the angel which appeared to Mary. In addition, the barren old
woman had become pregnant and gave birth to John approximately
six months before Jesus was born was also conveyed as part of
the same miraculous recount.
 
It's not an unmarried person. Mary was actually engaged to
Joseph at that point, which Jewish tradition considers to be
part of the actual marriage. Joseph was even going to write
her a certificate of divorcement, but God appeared to Him in
a dream to confirm that the holy thing she was carrying was
of God, and not of man.
 
Your beliefs there are incorrect, Daniel. The Bible is abso-
lutely clear on this point. It requires only study to see it.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Nov 13 09:39AM -0800

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 12:24:08 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> Your beliefs there are incorrect, Daniel. The Bible is abso-
> lutely clear on this point. It requires only study to see it.
 
I don't have beliefs/non-beliefs about religious history, but not being a
specialist in the vast literature, or able to read Greek or Aramaic, I tend to
go with scholarly consensus, where it exists. I imagine that since the texts
are very important to you, you've taken the trouble to learn Greek and Aramaic?
 
Daniel
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Nov 13 09:55AM -0800

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 12:39:45 PM UTC-5, Daniel wrote:
> specialist in the vast literature, or able to read Greek or Aramaic, I tend to
> go with scholarly consensus, where it exists. I imagine that since the texts
> are very important to you, you've taken the trouble to learn Greek and Aramaic?
 
The world has a type of wisdom which is against God, Daniel.
You'll find many interesting and amazing things in the world's
teachings. They may fill you with excitement and pique your
interests and carry you through your life ... but they will
give you no aid whatsoever after you leave this world.
 
Consider eternity. Read the Bible and learn what it teaches
about your sin state (which you can self-confirm), and why it
was Jesus came into this world at all. It was to save your
soul from judgment so you too can have eternal life.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Nov 13 07:34PM +0100

On 13/11/2018 18:23, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> today it only refers to someone who has not yet had sex. Back
> then, people didn't have sex until marriage, and thus the two
> were interchangeable.
 
You are joking, surely? I can't remember ever reading such naïve silliness.
 
People have /always/ had sex - before marriage, after marriage, within
marriage, outside marriage. Men in a lot of cultures try to keep women
from having sex before marriage - this is one of the reasons for girls
being married off long before they are adults. But no culture has ever
managed to stop it happening. Getting married somewhere between getting
pregnant and giving birth has always been common practice - the Jews at
the the beginning of the common era were no different.
 
In particular, the whole mythical idea of being impregnated by a god is
simply a socially acceptable excuse for getting pregnant without being
married.
 
And Daniel is correct about the mistranslation. When the OT really
meant virgin, rather than young women, a different word was used.
 
> The virgin birth is absolutely essential. It was foretold in
> the Old Testament, and it is explained in the New Testament by
> the angel which appeared to Mary.
 
No, a virgin birth is not remotely essential. It is essential to the
story that "God" is the child's father, not Joseph, but that does not
require virginity. And the prophesies are all fiddled to make them
"true" anyway - by cherry-picking the ones to include in the OT, by
varying the language and translations, and by making up stuff in the NT
stories. This was common practice in the Jewish tradition - it goes
along with making up family linages. It was a technique for convincing
the Jews of the time, and was important for them, but it is not relevant
in the slightest to the teachings of Christianity. If Jesus was the son
of god, then that's who he was - it doesn't matter what some old guy
said hundreds of years earlier, nor does it matter what his mother did.
If you are a Christian, look to /Jesus/ - not the outdated teachings,
stories and histories that he replaced.
 
> woman had become pregnant and gave birth to John approximately
> six months before Jesus was born was also conveyed as part of
> the same miraculous recount.
 
This supposedly "barren" women was probably fine - most likely it was
her husband that was infertile. Male dominated societies are fond of
blaming the women when they fail to get pregnant, but it's just as often
the man that has the problem.
 
> It's not an unmarried person. Mary was actually engaged to
> Joseph at that point, which Jewish tradition considers to be
> part of the actual marriage.
 
No, engagement was - as it is now - a commitment to marriage. It was a
first step, but it was not marriage. And - just as now - it was common
for couples to "get to know each other" before the actual marriage.
 
Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Nov 13 10:34AM -0800

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 12:55:56 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
>> I imagine that since the texts are very important to you, you've taken
>> the trouble to learn Greek and Aramaic?
 
> wisdom ... against God, etc.
 
Okay, guess not :-) I would have thought you would have, if the texts were
that important to you. It reinforces my thinking that your primary source of
inspiration is revelation, as it is for many evangelists, so that even
the texts are ultimately not that important to you.
 
Best regards,
Daniel
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Nov 13 10:53AM -0800

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 1:34:30 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
> > then, people didn't have sex until marriage, and thus the two
> > were interchangeable.
 
> You are joking, surely? ...
 
David, the Bible is very clear that sex before marriage is a
sin. The teachings of the Bible guide people toward honoring
God, and not sinning. The term virgin has still meant being
an unmarried person as recently as my early childhood (1970s),
though it also had the other meaning as well.
 
People will always sin until the day we are set free from the
confines of this world. That doesn't make it right, nor part
of the teachings of the Bible toward right behavior. It does
make it part of the recording of the Bible, as the Bible records
not only what's right, but also what man did at various points,
including all manner of sin.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Nov 13 10:54AM -0800

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 1:34:39 PM UTC-5, Daniel wrote:
> that important to you. It reinforces my thinking that your primary source of
> inspiration is revelation, as it is for many evangelists, so that even
> the texts are ultimately not that important to you.
 
You're fighting a losing battle, Daniel. You are holding on
to things you think affirm and bolster your position, but they
are quicksand, slowly burying you up to your neck. If you are
not rescued out of it, you will die one day (eternal death,
not just physical death).
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Nov 13 11:11AM -0800

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 1:34:30 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
> > the Old Testament, and it is explained in the New Testament by
> > the angel which appeared to Mary.
 
> No, a virgin birth is not remotely essential.
 
It was prophesied, David. And the meaning of that prophecy
was later given its fullness:
 
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+7%3A14&version=KJV
 
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and
shall call his name Immanuel.
 
The explicit prophecy of her being a virgin (having not had
sex) was prophesied before she conceived by the angel
Gabriel:
 
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1%3A26-37&version=KJV
 
26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from
God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of
the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that
art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art
thou among women.
29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and
cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast
found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring
forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the
Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne
of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and
of his kingdom there shall be no end.
==> 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing
I know not a man?
==> 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost
shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall
overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which
shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived
a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her,
who was called barren.
37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
 
The Bible even punctuates the point:
 
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1%3A24-25&version=KJV
 
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of
the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
==> 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn
son: and he called his name Jesus.
 
It was prophesied to be a particular way. It was absolutely and
completely essential that it came to pass as God foretold through
His prophets, and through the angel Gabriel announcing the coming
of Jesus through Mary, a blessed young woman. And it is reinforced
by the declaration that Joseph did not "know" his wife (have sex
with her) until after she delivered Jesus.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Nov 13 12:03PM -0800

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 1:55:08 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> You're fighting a losing battle, Daniel.
 
Was I fighting a battle? I wasn't aware of it :-)
 
But we can both follow Pope Francis' advice:
 
"Just do good and we'll find a meeting point," the pope said in a hypothetical conversation in which someone told a priest: "But I don't believe. I'm an atheist."
 
Best wishes,
Daniel
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Nov 13 09:51PM +0100

On 13/11/2018 19:53, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
>> You are joking, surely? ...
 
> David, the Bible is very clear that sex before marriage is a
> sin.
 
What has that got to do with anything? Are you suggesting that the Jews
of that time did not sin? Or that they didn't have sex before marriage
because it is a sin? That is just absurd.
 
(And the Bible is very far from clear that sex before marriage is a sin.
It says that sexual immorality is a sin, with no clear definition of
what counts as sexual immorality. And it says adultery is a sin. But
it says nothing specific about sex before marriage being a sin. The
nearest you could say about it is that Paul thought people should
abstain from sex, and that if they can't contain themselves, they should
get married. That is not "clear" in any possible way. And of course,
this stuff is almost all in the NT, and therefore not applicable to Jews
of the time.)
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>: Nov 13 12:56PM -0800

On 11/13/2018 2:44 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> he was complete on the day he was created, meaning he didn't have
> to go to school, but was made to be in his full faculties, possessing
> the full skills and mastery of all his abilities.
[...]
 
Have you ever read about the Giants, or Hybrids in the Bible? Afaict,
wrt the warnings to satan, they are an abomination of Gods creation.
 
Wrt the Hybrids, it sounds like the hardcore scientist satan really
wanted to experiment around with the physical nature of God's creations.
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Nov 13 09:57PM +0100

On 13/11/2018 20:11, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> the angel which appeared to Mary.
 
>> No, a virgin birth is not remotely essential.
 
> It was prophesied, David.
 
And as I said, that is irrelevant for two main reasons. First, the
"prophecies" involved are picked to fit the later descriptions of
events, and the descriptions were written to fit the prophecies picked.
Secondly, the prophesy stuff was relevant to convincing the Jews who
believed in that sort of junk - it is of no significance to the reality,
or otherwise, of Jesus as the son of god. Either he was the son of god
(and if you belief that, that's fine), or he was not. What someone said
hundreds of years ago did not influence that fact or non-fact.
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Nov 13 01:04PM -0800

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 3:56:51 PM UTC-5, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> Have you ever read about the Giants, or Hybrids in the Bible?
 
The Nephilim.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Nov 13 01:20PM -0800

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 3:03:26 PM UTC-5, Daniel wrote:
 
> Was I fighting a battle? I wasn't aware of it :-)
 
> But we can both follow Pope Francis' advice:
 
> "Just do good and we'll find a meeting point," the pope said in a hypothetical conversation in which someone told a priest: "But I don't believe. I'm an atheist."
 
Do not take guidance from a man (including myself). If you
hear any person teach / tell you anything that is allegedly
from God, or given from the point of view of someone teaching
about God, make sure you go to the Bible and validate that
statement / teaching / idea / quote for yourself.
 
You are accountable to God alone, Daniel. We are each like-
wise accountable to God alone.
 
Love God.
Love people.
Serve God by serving His people (the whole creation of man).
Serve His people by teaching them about their sin, about judgment,
about salvation, and in their bodily needs.
 
It's very simple.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Nov 13 01:22PM -0800

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 3:57:26 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
> or otherwise, of Jesus as the son of god. Either he was the son of god
> (and if you belief that, that's fine), or he was not. What someone said
> hundreds of years ago did not influence that fact or non-fact.
 
Truth is fundamental, David. It doesn't have multiple faces.
In order for truth to exist, all of it must always exist fully.
And that's what you find in the Bible, in God, in the teaching
of the Holy Spirit which align with scripture.
 
You put man's wisdom, man's conclusion upon the things of God.
You are wrong to do so, and it's actually a sin to do so. God
is who God is, and He is not to be likened to sinful man's
lies and cheats.
 
You are again heaping damnation upon your own head by your
statements.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Nov 13 10:43PM

On 13/11/2018 21:22, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> lies and cheats.
 
> You are again heaping damnation upon your own head by your
> statements.
 
And Satan invented fossils, yes? Speed of light in a vacuum, mate.
 
/Flibble
 
--
"You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais
 
"I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who
doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." –
Ricky Gervais
 
"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."
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram): Nov 13 09:56PM

N4762 literally contains this sentence in N4762 24.5.8p20s2:
 
|The value returned for pow(0, 0) is implementation-defined.
 
. »pow« actually is taken over from C. C says:
 
|A domain error may occur if x is zero and y is zero.
 
in its section about »pow«. However, C also says in a
general section:
 
|If an exceptional condition occurs during the evaluation of
|an expression (that is, if the result is not mathematically
|defined or not in the range of representable values for its
|type), the behavior is undefined.
 
IIRC, 0 raised to the power of 0 is not mathematically
defined. So it should have undefined behavior in C.
 
Well, actually I am confused because of this:
 
The quotation
 
|The value returned for pow(0, 0) is implementation-defined.
 
stems from a section of C++ that seems to refer to the
C++ pow function returning a complex value. I.e.,
 
|N4762 24.5.8 complex transcendentals [complex.transcendentals]
 
. So does
 
|The value returned for pow(0, 0) is implementation-defined.
 
only refer to those overloads of pow that have a complex
return type?
 
And if I write
 
#include <math.h>
int main(){ pow(0, 0); }
 
, there seems to be no complex type involved. What can
we say about »pow( 0, 0 )« in this program, then?
 
I believe, it has undefined behavior. But N4762 literally
contains the sentence:
 
|The value returned for pow(0, 0) is implementation-defined.
 
. Say what now?
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>: Nov 13 03:41PM -0600

"Trip report: Fall ISO C++ standards meeting (San Diego)" by Herb Sutter

https://herbsutter.com/2018/11/13/trip-report-fall-iso-c-standards-meeting-san-diego/
 
"On Saturday November 10, the ISO C++ committee completed its fall
meeting in San Diego, California, USA, hosted with thanks by Qualcomm.
This was the biggest ISO C++ meeting in our 29-year history, with some
180 people at the meeting, representing 12 nations. For more details
about our size increase, including how we adapted organizationally to
handle the load, see my "pre-trip report" posted before the meeting began."
 
"Because this is one of the last meetings for adding features to C++20,
we gave priority to proposals that might make C++20, and we adopted a
number of them for C++20. Thank you to all of the hundreds of people who
participate in ISO C++, those who came to the meeting and still more who
participated electronically, and who all helped with the design
refinement and specification wording and organization. I want to at
least try to recognize by name many of the authors of the proposals we
adopted, but nobody succeeds with a proposal on their own. C++ is a team
effort – this wouldn't be possible without all of your help. So, thank
you, and apologies for not being able to acknowledge everyone by name."
 
Wow, that is a lot of new features.
 
I like this, "char8_t: A type for UTF-8 characters and strings (Revision 5)"
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p0482r5.html
 
Lynn
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)