Sunday, December 30, 2018

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 8 updates in 4 topics

"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>: Dec 30 01:58PM -0800

On 12/30/2018 1:41 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> There is no way for men and women to live a "good life" without
> having a foundation which teaches them what good is, and why it
> is good compared alongside other things.
 
I humbly disagree with that statement. A baby starts to learn whats bad
if somebody steals their candy, perhaps the crime was committed by
another close by baby? The victim should start crying, and get really
pissed off. They will start to learn that the act of taking the candy
away was really bad, aka, stealing.
 
 
> In addition, the world's view of what is good is different from
> God's view.
 
Good is good. God and the world can agree on a lot of things. Is
stealing bad? Yes. It seems like some basic sins are coded in our minds
as being bad already.
 
 
> for us to be and do, rather than what Ricky Gervais believes
> we should do. God has it right. Ricky Gervais has it incom-
> plete and misleading.
 
Little kids just know the difference between right and wrong, and a lot
of them have never read the Bible. Now, there are some crazy people out
there that claim to not know the difference between right and wrong.
They are usually confined to the nut house.
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Dec 30 02:16PM -0800

On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 4:58:21 PM UTC-5, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> another close by baby? The victim should start crying, and get really
> .. . They will start to learn that the act of taking the candy
> away was really bad, aka, stealing.
 
That view of what's right and wrong is based on selfishness at
that age. It's based on "I want that" and "You're keeping me
from that." It's not based on reason. It's based on internal
drives and desires, and these are focused on selfishness.
 
That same baby could later on become a career thief, and would
be perfectly fine with that type of lifestyle, could potentially
even be a nice person in real, giving to charity, being active in
a church, doing all kinds of seemingly desirable things based on
the periodic thievery that individual is involved in. People who
only knew that individual tangentially could say how kind and lov-
ing they are.
 
Not everyone who does sinful things is horrible. In fact, most
people who do sinful things are relatively nice people. They
help their kids, families, friends, co-workers, etc..
 
NONE OF THAT MATTERS in and of itself. Hell is going to be filled
with moral, upright, even religious people, right alongside the
axe murderers, prostitutes, adulterers, drunkards, and the like.
 
Heaven is going to be filled with the same kind of people ... that
repented, recognized their sin as sin, asked forgiveness, and were
saved.
 
 
> Good is good. God and the world can agree on a lot of things. Is
> stealing bad? Yes. It seems like some basic sins are coded in our minds
> as being bad already.
 
There are communities within the world where people do not view
stealing as bad. A group of thieves working together would go
out of their way to help one another out. They would have a
skewed perspective of a conscience or what's right and wrong.
They would not consider turning on their fellow thieves, turning
them in, turning against their actions, even though God would
advise all of them to cease thieving and repent immediately.
 
The conscience can be skewed and meets the needs of the flesh-
focused life and living.
 
It is God's Holy Spirit who pours out CONVICTION upon a soul,
not upon the flesh, but upon the inside. And it is there where
the true nature of what is right and wrong stems from.
 
> of them have never read the Bible. Now, there are some crazy people out
> there that claim to not know the difference between right and wrong.
> They are usually confined to the nut house.
 
You don't have to teach a 2-yr old to lie. "Did you eat that last
piece of cake, Billy?" "No, mommy" all the while his lips and mouth
are covered with chocolate.
 
Kids constantly push boundaries. If you let them get away with
wicked things, they will pursue them and push the boundaries out
even further.
 
There really is an enemy spirit at work against all flesh in this
world, Chris. You are a victim of it. Your flippant casual use
of profanity here and there, of dipping in to worldliness here
and there... you are double-minded, which means you are worldly-
minded. It's how nearly every is world-wide. It requires the
strict and formal ongoing pursuit of God to overcome it and pre-
vent that natural flesh-focused nature from rising up in our
lives and overwhelming our interests, goals and purposes.
 
God seeks those who will pursue Him in SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH. They
are the ones who are saved. The rest are just going through the
motions of living out this physical life, with soul as black as
pitch, and their spirit dead from before birth.
 
I can't stress it enough. We need Jesus Christ to guide us.
Without Him, we have NO HOPE WHATSOEVER. None. We are totally
destroyed without Christ in our corner.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>: Dec 30 03:21PM -0800

On 12/30/2018 2:16 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> the periodic thievery that individual is involved in. People who
> only knew that individual tangentially could say how kind and lov-
> ing they are.
 
There are a lot of hypocrites.
 
 
> people who do sinful things are relatively nice people. They
> help their kids, families, friends, co-workers, etc..
 
> NONE OF THAT MATTERS in and of itself.
 
Wow. Really? Just, wow.
 
> Hell is going to be filled
> with moral, upright, even religious people, right alongside the
> axe murderers, prostitutes, adulterers, drunkards, and the like.
[...]
What a nice message. Wow.
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>: Dec 30 03:23PM -0800

On 12/30/2018 2:16 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> that age. It's based on "I want that" and "You're keeping me
> from that." It's not based on reason. It's based on internal
> drives and desires, and these are focused on selfishness.
 
I can see it now... Some thief steals from Rick. Well now, Rick cannot
get mad because that would be selfish in nature. ;^)
 
[...]
Bart <bc@freeuk.com>: Dec 30 10:17PM

On 30/12/2018 21:45, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> them in certain cases ... they'll be there.  I probably won't use
> many of the new features I'm adding most of the time, but I will
> probably use most of them some of the time.
 
 
The reference is to Algol68 where there is no distinction between
statements and expressions, which could be used interchangeably.
 
This is what I meant the other day about adding fewer, more general,
broader features rather than dozens of very specific ones.
 
Actually, my language until about six or so years ago worked exactly the
same way. My newer one doesn't - it is more conservative and limited by
design.
 
Because (1) I hardly ever used those features; (2) avoiding them leads
to easier-to-understand code IMO; (3) it makes code and algorithms more
portable; (4) it makes the language easier to implement; (5) it makes it
easier to trap a range of errors that otherwise have to be let through.
 
--
bart
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Dec 30 05:22PM -0500

On 12/30/2018 5:17 PM, Bart wrote:
> easier-to-understand code IMO; (3) it makes code and algorithms more
> portable; (4) it makes the language easier to implement; (5) it makes it
> easier to trap a range of errors that otherwise have to be let through.
 
My goals with CAlive are the needs of development by other people. I
want to give them a robust set of tools in version 1.0. If, in by the
time version 5.0 is released some of the features are not in use and
not needed, I may consider removing them. However, my general phil-
osophy is that once something is written it's not that difficult to
keep it moving forward. Even if you don't change anything, but just
make sure the interface to the prior-written thing continues to work,
it may be of use to some people.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu>: Dec 29 04:04PM -0500

On 12/27/18 21:34, Richard Damon wrote:
...
> It used to be that an implementation was allowed to define -1 % 10 to be
> 9, but they standard changed the rule for division so that that wasn't
> allowed anymore. (It required -1/10 == -1)
 
C90 allowed -1/10 to be either 0 or -1. C99 and later requires -1/10 to
be 0. In all versions of the standard, the values returned by the %
operator are defined by requiring that (a/b)*b + (a%b) == a.
"AL.GleeD NICE" <al.glead.aa@gmail.com>: Dec 30 01:12AM -0800

On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 5:47:52 AM UTC+3, AL.GleeD NICE wrote:
 
------------
 
 
welcome everybody
All these attempts did not succeed
 
I suspect the translator has an incomprehensible side of the parameter
 
Thank you all for your attempts
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)