- [Jesus Loves You] The Truth - 12 Updates
- Where do you need expand macros in your C++ code? - 5 Updates
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: May 15 04:58PM -0700 On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 4:24:55 PM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > We have already been over this. Evolution falsifies Genesis m8. > This is my point. Evolution is disproven by genetics, but you > do not accept that. But the scientific consensus is that evolution is correct. And most christians accept evolution, including the catholic church and the mainstream protestant denominations, because of the scientific consensus. I'm afraid you're the outlier. Daniel |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: May 15 06:24PM -0700 On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 7:58:57 PM UTC-4, Daniel wrote: > mainstream protestant denominations, because of the scientific consensus. > I'm afraid you're the outlier. > Daniel Genetics research has completely disproven evolution. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: May 15 06:42PM -0700 On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 9:24:14 PM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > Genetics research has completely disproven evolution. :-) The scientific community demurs. Perhaps you need to win over that community first :-) Best regards, Daniel |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: May 15 07:50PM -0700 On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 9:42:51 PM UTC-4, Daniel wrote: > :-) > The scientific community demurs. Perhaps you need to win over that community > first :-) Inertia. Power bases. The truth always wins. Investigate it for yourself, Daniel. Genetics research is an absolute slam dunk against evolution. Information systems. Encoding, decoding systems. Some of them are intertangled in 12 directions, meaning a single encoding works on 12 different proteins machines, each one is different. Change even one A,C,T,G, and it breaks down completely. They make movies like No Intelligence Allowed over the scientific biad and inertia. The truth shines and removes all lies about evolution. It is overcome and resolved. The inertia won't let it die yet, lest it be admitted that 180?? years of belief systems were categorically wrong. Investigate it for yourself, Daniel. Seek the truth. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: May 15 08:39PM -0700 On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 10:51:11 PM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > Genetics research is an absolute slam dunk against evolution. In that case you should have no trouble moving the scientific consensus :-) Mr Flibble and myself will no doubt be sampling it from time to time. But as one great ape to another, I think it would be time better spent were you to, say, visit the Smithsonian Institute and learn something about the genetic evidence for evolution. Best regards, Daniel |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: May 16 03:45AM -0700 On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 11:39:56 PM UTC-4, Daniel wrote: > But as one great ape to another, I think it would be time better spent were > you to, say, visit the Smithsonian Institute and learn something about the > genetic evidence for evolution. There is no genetic evidence for evolution. There is no evidence for evolution. There is supposition and assumption wrapped in statements like "It must've been" and "It likely was" and "Life must've evolved" and so on. The Biblical narrative actually is backed up with factual evidence observed in nature today. It explains how life diverged from what we see in the fossil record to what we see now, along with further ongoing delineation of the species. The complexities involved in variation between different kinds of life ... the differences are absolutely insurmountable to account for by random mutations. The math involved is beyond the scales of the number of atoms in the universe by millions of orders of magnitude. It would be like covering the United States with pennies two inches deep, and reaching in and pulling out 19 colored pennies distributed randomly across the entire United States in sequence. Do you think it's possible to reach in randomly and pull out all 19 pennies in sequence when they're randomly scattered all across the U.S.? Another example is to have one grain of red sand, and to fill the entire observable universe with brown sand, and to then reach in and find the red grain of sand in one try. Do you think you could do that? Those are the mathematical scales involved in random mutation creating even single protein changes in an existing complex lifeform by making manual adjustments to its DNA by natural processes. Here's a movie which describes it: Programming Of Life Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s Here's a video which describes how two humans produced all the people groups we see worldwide. How two of each kind of animal produced all the variation we see. Et cetera: One Race, One Blood Begins at 10:44: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_TR4MHuBRE&t=10m44s There are no flaws in the Biblical narrative. And the Biblical narrative answers countless questions evolution cannot. A study was done on human DNA a few years back to determine if "junk DNA" had any function, because it's been widely published that only 2% of our DNA is actually used in generating proteins. The study found that 80% of our DNA can be proven to be used in regulation of our DNA transcription, and the remaining 20% is suspected to be in use as well, but cannot be proven today. As scientific facts and studies and research emerges, the data all points to a creator, and not only a creator, but an unbelievably intelligent and masterful creator, one with such diversity and capability. This information is suppressed in the mainstream media, even refuted or "debunked" because it doesn't align with he Darwinian evolution narrative that takes God out of our lives, replacing Him with cold random chance. You're listening to lying demons at work through men and women in this world, offering prestige, power, position, popularity, plaudits, for "towing the narrative," but legitimate scientific research that contradicts the beliefs of Darwinian evolution are not allowed, not accepted, and are attacked vigorously. Nonetheless, truth is always, always victorious, and truth will totally own this one as well. God is not mocked. He has told us the truth, but sin-embracing men and women are listening to the guidance and teaching of evil spirit doctrine ahead of God, even though God is being proven time and time again in the laboratory. SEEK THE TRUTH. Acknowledge that there is a war on for your eternal soul, that a great deceiver is deceiving you into believing his false teachings ahead of God's truth. Give God a chance to prove Himself. Seek the truth in these matters, and DEMAND, LITERALLY DEMAND WITH IMPUNITY, that the facts speak loudly as to their own origins. They will very clearly reveal God and the Biblical narrative. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: May 16 05:10AM -0700 On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 6:45:30 AM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > Here's a movie ...: A movie, and it's on the internet, so it must be true :-) There are a lot of movies on the internet, Rick. There's one that "proves" that the 9/11 tower collapse was a controlled demolition by the CIA. But I think I'll go with the consensus explanation. Daniel |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: May 16 05:17AM -0700 On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 8:10:22 AM UTC-4, Daniel wrote: > movies on the internet, Rick. There's one that "proves" that the 9/11 tower > collapse was a controlled demolition by the CIA. But I think I'll go with the > consensus explanation. I advise going with the evidence and facts. They will teach you the truth explicitly. Follow the evidence. Follow the facts. Press them hard to reveal the truth. You'll never be disappointed seeking the truth. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: May 16 05:52PM +0100 On 16/05/2019 13:17, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > the truth explicitly. Follow the evidence. Follow the facts. > Press them hard to reveal the truth. > You'll never be disappointed seeking the truth. The truth, yes. And Satan invented fossils, yes? /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." |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: May 16 10:13AM -0700 On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:52:54 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote: > > Press them hard to reveal the truth. > > You'll never be disappointed seeking the truth. > The truth, yes. And Satan invented fossils, yes? Leigh, you do not pursue the truth. You cannot distinguish lies from truth because you are content to believe lies, and the enemy attacks you in that position. You will lose your eternal soul if your persist without taking seriously these warnings. You are so talented, Leigh. It's such a waste to be gain- saying and obstinate in the light of facts which contradict your current beliefs. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: May 16 10:19PM +0100 On 16/05/2019 18:13, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > You are so talented, Leigh. It's such a waste to be gain- > saying and obstinate in the light of facts which contradict > your current beliefs. Nonsense. A) Your bible is false. B) Your god the existence of which is predicated on your bible being true is, given (A), also false. /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." |
| gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack): May 16 10:41PM In article <ytkDE.102415$ID4.49613@fx06.fr7>, Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> wrote: ... >A) Your bible is false. >B) Your god the existence of which is predicated on your bible being true >is, given (A), also false. Why do you bother? Why does anyone bother arguing with this turd? Every single conversation/discussion/argument with RCH is exactly equivalent to: Sensible Person: 2 + 2 = 4 RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. Sensible Person: Yes, it is. RCH: No, it isn't. |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: May 16 08:48AM -0700 On Wednesday, 15 May 2019 21:14:18 UTC+3, Bart wrote: > What I proposed could be done with new additions, and in fact Alf > already posted a link to something that can added to a future C++ to > help with this particular requirement. I wrote: ! Macros go nowhere until reflection is only possible with preprocessor. Obviously if we add non-preprocessor reflection to C++ then macros go away. It is awful idea to use that preprocessorish syntax for non-preprocessor reflection. And in next message I also wrote that you erased: ! C preprocessor does not have such concept of "call site". For it most ! of our program code is just random pile of text from what it searches ! its directives and macros and then rearranges, alters, inserts and ! erases it based on those directives and macros. ! ! If you have some wiser preprocessor, then paste its link in github ! here and let's have a look. ;) Since what you have is ?maybe? some concept of more context-aware preprocessor but then you can't just propose it with random one-liners. Even existing art (the extensions in actual compilers) won't get into standard too easily. > printf(mess, param) > printf("\n") > end Here these are apparently not preprocessor macros but reflection that is part of language. |
| Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com>: May 16 10:36AM -0700 On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 2:52:16 PM UTC-3, Paavo Helde wrote: ... > #else > #define OVERRIDE > 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
|
No comments:
Post a Comment