- [Jesus Loves You] How'd we become so depraved? - 10 Updates
- How to convert UTF-8 literal to `char const*` at compile time in C++20? - 3 Updates
- std::hexfloat - 2 Updates
- Object properties in C++ - almost complete, but with sily problem - 5 Updates
- Undefined Behaviour - 1 Update
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: May 30 07:26AM -0700 On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 9:55:44 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote: > > cannot see that God is moving in your life, but the teaching here > > is that yes, He is moving in your life daily: > The question was why are there millions of sperms in one ejaculation. I answered this question in the reply following your original post. I said something like how many seeds are produced from a tree each planting season? And how many of those seeds produce new trees? And how many seeds are produced by plants each year? And how many of those seeds produce new plants? There is precedence in the natural world for a greatly over-producing potential that does not take root and grow. In people and animals it may be entirely a natural process until God has a reason to choose from the multitude and pick the exact one He wants. We see evidence of that in scripture where there were certain animals with spots or speckles that were produced when God had given favor. It shows putting down certain branches, which either trigger it by some kind of natural process, or was a symbol by which God would then move: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+30%3A27-43&version=NIV;KJV 27 But Laban said to him, "If I have found favor in your eyes, please stay. I have learned by divination that the Lord has blessed me because of you." 28 He added, "Name your wages, and I will pay them." 31 "What shall I give you?" he asked. "Don't give me anything," Jacob replied. "But if you will do this one thing for me, I will go on tending your flocks and watching over them: 32 Let me go through all your flocks today and remove from them every speckled or spotted sheep, every dark-colored lamb and every spotted or speckled goat. They will be my wages. 37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. 41 Whenever the stronger females were in heat, Jacob would place the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so they would mate near the branches, 42 but if the animals were weak, he would not place them there. So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob. 43 In this way the man grew exceedingly prosperous and came to own large flocks, and female and male servants, and camels and donkeys. That was either God choosing them for Him, which seems to be the indication in verses 27-28 anyway, or it was due to some natural chemical process from the aromas in the branches that the animals were inhaling during mating which caused them to produce particu- lar kinds of offspring. Regardless, it shows God has a hand in the off-spring. We learn from other passages that the Lord is directly involved in procreation. Sarah could not conceive and did not conceive until her old age (giving birth and 90). The same for John the Baptist's mother Elizabeth who was barren until her aging years. But we also see entire houses having the females wombs shut up so the would not produce children, as well as individual people: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+20%3A18&version=NIV;KJV 18 for the Lord had kept all the women in Abimelek's household from conceiving because of Abraham's wife Sarah. As well as specific individuals: https://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+30%3A22&version=NIV;KJV 22 Then God remembered Rachel; he listened to her and enabled her to conceive. We know also that God has foreknew the type of people that would be produced from conception before they were born: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+16%3A11-12&version=NIV;KJV 11 The angel of the Lord also said to her: "You are now pregnant and you will give birth to a son. You shall name him Ishmael,[a] for the Lord has heard of your misery. 12 He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward[b] all his brothers." [a] Genesis 16:11 Ishmael means God hears. [b] Genesis 16:12 Or live to the east / of God is intimately involved in procreation. The question remains if it is all the time, or just sometime. The natural processes may well exist for natural procreation, but also for the ability for the Lord to choose explicitly whom to bring forth when and where. With Einstein, perhaps He chose him for that time and chose a particular mind. We know natural traits arise from our genetic code, and God may be directly involved in these, even if it's only at times. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: May 30 07:37AM -0700 On Thursday, 30 May 2019 16:09:52 UTC+3, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > There's a movie which conveys this concept in detail: > Programming of Life > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s There is one song about God's work that I did like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-vDhYTlCNw > You're not understanding. You'll have to get to a place where you > can recognize the difference between natural processes and engineered > or designed processes before we continue. Random processes can form really sophisticated algorithms and multi-modular devices rather mechanically in suitable environment. I already told about evolutionary computation (sophisticated algorithms forming) and deep learning (neural networks forming). *You* are not understanding. I do not deny that programs can be written, I only claim that those can be also evolved and trained. And therefore what happened: dedicated writing or mechanical evolving is not decided by fact alone that there is a purposeful program in living cells. > Please watch the movie above. It's in English, so you may need to > get someone to help you translate. It's the best movie I've found > to convey the information stored in DNA as a design to date. I have seen it. It seemed to be propaganda movie again constructed from fruits of work of real researchers (IOW your "servants of Satan") and seemed to misrepresent these works. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: May 30 07:47AM -0700 On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 10:38:03 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote: > There is one song about God's work that I did like: > [snip YouTube link] You are hostile to the true knowledge of the things of God. You are not seeking the truth but seek with a full throttle effort to discount the things of God's teaching in the Bible as lunacy, bowing instead to man's interpretation of what his limited vision and mental capacity reasons, all of which I have already told you time and time and time again is influenced by evil spirits seeding false thoughts and ideas in people's minds so they will naturally believe the wrong things, and come to the wrong conclusions. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: May 30 08:21AM -0700 On Thursday, 30 May 2019 17:47:24 UTC+3, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > There is one song about God's work that I did like: > > [snip YouTube link] > You are hostile to the true knowledge of the things of God. Don't mirror your hostility to me. I like all fairy tales but consider none of those be true. > time and time and time again is influenced by evil spirits seeding > false thoughts and ideas in people's minds so they will naturally > believe the wrong things, and come to the wrong conclusions. It is not lunacy it is selection of fairy tales of Semitic shepherds. Also I can enjoy but do never buy any horror stories about evil spirits. All your misery is not because of evil spirits but because you are weak and fallible yourself. Stand up and be a man. Accept whatever you have done and lied about as your own wrongdoing because you have been fool and fooling yourself. That is what all of us do from time to time and Bible talks a lot about how even the wisest chosen kings of Jews did that to themselves. Your special and unlimited "mental powers" do shine through from nowhere. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: May 30 08:49AM -0700 On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 11:21:39 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote: > even the wisest chosen kings of Jews did that to themselves. > Your special and unlimited "mental powers" do shine through > from nowhere. Someday you will know the truth, Öö Tiib. As with Leigh, fir, and the others here, I pray it comes before you leave this world so you are saved. You are valuable, precious, and I would like to see you thriving in eternity in the Kingdom of God. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: May 30 09:12AM -0700 On Thursday, 30 May 2019 18:49:18 UTC+3, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > the others here, I pray it comes before you leave this world so you > are saved. You are valuable, precious, and I would like to see you > thriving in eternity in the Kingdom of God. By my beliefs someday you will die and cease to exist forever. But it is hopefully not too soon so you have yet time to do something that will impress and inspire the next generations. Maybe nothing as groundbreaking as Jesus allegedly did, but still. All I can wish you have enough time left. But if there is God and eternity then I hope that He forgives you. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: May 30 09:38AM -0700 On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 12:12:31 PM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote: > Maybe nothing as groundbreaking as Jesus allegedly did, but > still. All I can wish you have enough time left. But if there is > God and eternity then I hope that He forgives you. There is a total blindness of the spiritual things of God which is unknowable to those who are not saved. I can remember experiencing the transformation when I was saved. I COULD NOT BELIEVE what had happened to me. I literally stood there with my mouth hanging open, stunned to the point of being speechless, that such a transformation was possible. I would never have believed it could be ... until it happened to me. It is the hard division between the saved (spiritual) and unsaved (carnal). It is a literal new birth (John 3) that completely undoes everything you thought you knew previously. If anyone here is saved, they can offer testimony about the change. And until then, any of you can go to local Bible-believing churches and ask to speak to born again believers and listen to their testi- monies. They will all be similar, but personal to each individual. Öö Tiib, you can't know today what you don't know, so I don't hold anything against you. I can only teach you that you are speaking with the enemy's prompting and voice in your mouth, and that you are doing harm to people because of it. It is all anyone can do until they come to Jesus, ask forgiveness, and begin to know the truth through that transformation. If you wish to learn the truth, go and speak to people in those local Bible-believing churches around where you live. Ask to speak to born again believers and listen to their testimonies. You'll hear from people who are not me similar things as those I speak about the transformation from carnal/flesh-only, to the new spirit nature. The two are separate and distinct and it's amazing how God has set it up. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com>: May 30 12:45AM -0700 On 5/28/2019 6:13 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: [...] Satan sounds a lot like Jeearr: https://www.thezorklibrary.com/history/jeearr.html (read all...) Wow. The accuser, the one that suggested doing something wrong, then attacks anything that actually does it... The backstabber. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: May 30 11:35PM +0100 On 30/05/2019 17:38, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > speak about the transformation from carnal/flesh-only, to the new > spirit nature. The two are separate and distinct and it's amazing > how God has set it up. Talking snakes with legs changed into snakes? Are you fucktarded? Seriously? Also, Satan invented fossils, yes? /Flibble -- "Talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin "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 30 11:57AM In article <915d9146-2dad-4ba4-a58b-76f3b438cb18@googlegroups.com>, Rick C. Hodgin <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote: ... >What did Jesus say about him? Somebody needs to get back on their meds... > https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A44&version=NIV;KJV Creepy Freakazoid. > [Jesus, speaking to the highly religious Jews who could not > recognize Him or hear His words -- read the whole chapter] Make America Great Again. > and abode not in the truth, because there is NO TRUTH IN > HIM. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for > HE IS A LIAR, and THE FATHER OF it [lies]. Bananas. >People make hats about this: Goofball. >https://www.ebay.com/itm/FAITH-FACTORY-Baseball-Cap-RED-Satan-is-a-Big-Fat-Liar-Embroidered-One-Size-/232756573816 Paranoid Freak. >I have one from a few years ago that reads simply, "Satan is a liar." Seriously deluded. >we actually hear the voice of Satan recorded. One in Genesis, one in >Job, and one when Satan is temping Jesus in the wilderness during his >40 day fast. What does Satan say? More than a few screws loose. > you. He's withholding His blessing by keeping the fruit > from this tree from you." > https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3%3A1-5&version=KJV;NIV There is no such thing as an ugly woman -- there are only the ones who do not know how to make themselves attractive. -- Christian Dior > love you because you bless them. Take away their blessing > and they will curse you to your face." >https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+1%3A8-12%2C+Job+2%3A1-6&version=KJV;NIV Crackpot. > been given to me. Bow down and worship me and I will give > it to you. I will be better to you than God." >https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4%3A7-9%2C+Luke+4%3A6-7&version=NIV;KJV Crank. >Even more summarized: Off Topic. > 1) God's not good enough to you. > 2) God, you're too good to them. > 3) I'll be better to you than God. Screwball. >Satan is underhanded. He strikes where we are weakest and he goes >to the hilt. In the book of Job passages above God gives him per- >mission to do harm to Job's family and what does Satan do? Loonball. > https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+1%3A13-19&version=KJV;NIV Weirdo. > were killed by a type of tornado attacking the house > where they were having an annual celebration (something > like a birthday party). Whacko. >When God gives Job license in Job 2 to do harm to Job's health: Beyond hope. > https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+2%3A7-9&version=KJV;NIV A village in Indiana is missing its idiot. > at his side who, having seen all of this tragedy, cries out > against him saying, "Are you still maintaining your integrity? > Curse God and die!" Breadbags on the soles of her shoes. >refine his goals of attacking job to such a fine timescale), but >Satan left his wife alive. Why? Satan knew of man's weakness >with regards to his wife. NutJob. >Adam, so he went to Eve testing his only possible recourse to see >if Adam, who loved his wife, would be moved by her to then sin for >her, rather than by prompting of another he doesn't love. Paranoid Freak. >their heart God was going to lead them to the wilderness to die, >not realizing God had plans and power and authority to sustain >them with or without natural resources in the land. Seriously deluded. >were certain things which had to come to pass. So, why would God >say such a thing? It wasn't because it was His true heart's in- >tent, but to teach us something. How does Moses respond? Bananas. >Moses said, "But now, please forgive their sin -- but if not, >then blot me out of the book you have written." Make America Great Again. >Here we see Moses willing to die along with his people rather than >suffer under an unjust God. Loonball. >Supporting verses: Crackpot. > https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+32%3A7-14%2C31-32&version=NIV;KJV > https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+14%3A11-20&version=NIV;KJV > https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+9%3A12-14&version=NIV;KJV NutJob. >saw that Eve had sinned. The Bible records Eve ate from the tree >of the knowledge of good and evil, and then gave some to her hus- >band and he did eat: Não roube. O governo não gosta de concorrência. > https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3%3A6-7&version=NIV;KJV Creepy Freakazoid. > 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized > they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made > coverings for themselves. Weirdo. >like Moses, was willing to share her fate and go through what she >would not go through with her rather than being alone again, and >being apart from her. Breadbags on the soles of her shoes. >test, a trial, to prove Moses was loyal to his people, and more im- >portantly, to the truth and justice of rightness and reputation, >then here with Adam we see a similar response. Beyond hope. >all straight from God's perfect design. Adam's love for his wife >would not be like a tainted love, but rather the purest love that >a man has ever had for his wife. Crank. >conscious choice, as did Moses, that he would suffer the same fate >as she would, because of his principles, his morals and ethics, and >his love. Whacko. >and perfect nature of Adam's creation by God, we can only conclude >that Adam would not have done incorrect things, but was so moved by >his wife that he made a choice. A village in Indiana is missing its idiot. >There's also an argument to be made from Genesis 2:24: Screwball. > https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2%3A24&version=NIV;KJV More than a few screws loose. > 24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united > to his wife, and they become one flesh. Goofball. >the fallen nature of Eve in that instant, was translated into Adam >also, so that he was weakened due to her sin, and therefore followed >Eve into sin. Off Topic. >and share her fate. Adam may have been overcome by the fallen-in-sin >flesh he now possessed by his wife's sin, since they were made one >flesh by God, so that he fell because of it. Somebody needs to get back on their meds... >book of Job, where Satan kills all of Job's family, but leaves his >wife alive. Why? It may be that there's a connection between the >two, and when God said: Seriously deluded. > https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+2%3A6&version=NIV;KJV Breadbags on the soles of her shoes. > 6 The Lord said to Satan, "Very well, then, he is in your > hands; but you must spare his life." NutJob. >Satan did not spare his children, nor his servants (save those few >who would come and report the tragedy), nor his property, nor even >his full health. But he did save his wife alive. Bananas. >God and to us, and why God decreed no divorce, and Jesus said in >Matthew 19 that all re-marriages before the death of one's spouse >is adultery. Whacko. >It all ties together and is logical, but it requires considerable >thought to recognize it, to see it, to understand it. A village in Indiana is missing its idiot. >statements like, "I've studied the Bible for decades, yet every >time I pick it up I find something new, something I hadn't noticed >before." Somebody needs to get back on their meds... >scholars working in unison and agreement for decades, yet at the >same time, a five year old could understand the general message, >and our need of salvation. Loonball. -- The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4 lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL: http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/RepInsults |
| Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>: May 30 07:33AM -0700 >>> What to do? >> This can be done using constexpr overloaded functions, > I don't see how. Let me first make sure I understand what you mean by the next comment, then we can get back to this one. >> } > Yes, if one can modify that checker code. > But suppose one can't? When you say "that checker code", do you mean that it must use the routine 'is_utf8_tail_byte', and use it as written? Normally I expect this wouldn't be a problem, because the different types we want to address would very likely convert to 'char' in an appropriate way, and converting to 'char' (ie, from the element type of the argument) would happen automatically when calling is_utf8_tail_byte(). However, if it is necessary to do some sort of special conversion for some argument types, that can be done using another template function, as for example (disclaimer: not compiled): template < typename T > constexpr char convert_to_char( T ); template < typename T > constexpr int n_code_points( const T *s ){ ... ... is_utf8_tail_byte( convert_to_char( *s ) ) ... ... } and use template specialization for 'convert_to_char' to get the specific behavior desired in each particular case. Does that make sense? |
| "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: May 30 06:07PM +0200 On 30.05.2019 16:33, Tim Rentsch wrote: > When you say "that checker code", do you mean that it > must use the routine 'is_utf8_tail_byte', and use it > as written? Yes. > and use template specialization for 'convert_to_char' to get > the specific behavior desired in each particular case. Does > that make sense? Yes, it narrows the problem down to writing a `convert_to_char_ptr` function that is `constexpr`, which I don't think is possible. And as such it narrows downs what is or certainly appears to be problematic about the C++20 change of type for an `u8`-literal, and for that matter, also for its change of result type for `std::filesystem::path::u8string`... It's like the committee effectively has adopted a goal of sabotaging use of Unicode in C++, I would assume driven by a small clique of members. Which, since that's critical, amounts to sabotaging general use of C++. In my view, if this functionality is used, then they're breaking a lot of code, and if it's generally not used, they should consider replacing it instead of changing a detail and breaking some few enthusiasts' code and having effectively judged ungood functionality in the standard. Cheers!, - Alf |
| Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid>: May 30 09:33PM +0100 On 30/05/2019 17:07, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > It's like the committee effectively has adopted a goal of sabotaging use > of Unicode in C++, I would assume driven by a small clique of members. Never assume malice when incompetence is enough. The one I recall from some years ago was trying to open files on Windows, where the native paths were 16-bit characters (in the days before Unicode overflowed them). *nixers were OK with narrow chars, as UTF8 is narrow. But there was no STL method to refer to files with wide char names. Andy -- I haven't hit the filter yet on this group. Yet. |
| Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>: May 30 07:23AM -0700 >> the C++ standard I didn't find anything. > Would it still be UB if p was a std::byte*? You would probably hate > my casting adventures. I said only that an argument could be made. Generally I don't pay much attention to language-lawyer type arguments unless they are supplemented by some sort of discussion about what was probably intended. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: May 30 09:56PM +0200 On 30/05/2019 16:18, Tim Rentsch wrote: > this change was made to clarify what meaning was intended, but > the semantics is the same as it has been back to and including > the original ANSI standard. (I am not sure how the C++ standards handle this - I am afraid I know only of the C standards in this regard. I welcome any information about C++ handling.) First, let me note that there is no /practical/ distinction, in that AFAIUI all compiler writers have always viewed "volatile" as a matter of access, rather than of a characteristic of objects. Thus they have interpreted access via a pointer-to-volatile as a volatile access, even if the compiler can see that the object pointed was not declared as volatile. It is likely that this is the original intention of how "volatile" was supposed to work, and thus the changes in C17 are, as you say, just a clarification. However, I am not convinced that there is no distinction here, and no effective change in the standard. (I'm not saying you are wrong either - merely that I am not yet convinced.) The fact that the committee is making this change, which involves a re-wording in a large number of places in the standard, appears to me to indicate that it is considered a change and enhancement, not just a clarification. One possible (but purely speculative on my part) reason for this is the evolution of more omnipotent compilers (with link-time optimisation). It used to be the case that C code was compiled in small parts. So when the C compiler met a "volatile int *" pointer, perhaps as a function argument, it would have to assume it could be pointing at a volatile object. Modern compilers, however, have much more inter-procedural and inter-module analysis, and a compiler could realise that this pointer only ever pointed at normal non-volatile objects - thus despite the pointer's type, the accesses would not need to be "volatile". It may be that 6.3.2.1p1 (the section of C11 that you quoted) does mean that if an lvalue formed from a pointer-to-volatile means that object, for that access, is considered to be of a volatile qualified type. But I feel that this interpretation is too obscure, while the standard is consistent about "access to volatile objects" throughout the rest of the standard. I think that is reading too much into that one line. I also wonder how the same thing would apply to "_Atomic" qualification. Would that also allow something like this: extern int x; _Atomic int * p = (_Atomic int *) &x; *p = 1; with the access begin atomic? AFAIK, "int" and "_Atomic int" don't even have to have the same size, so something must surely be wrong here? |
| Szyk Cech <szykcech@spoko.pl>: May 30 07:11PM +0200 Hi I trying to implement "properties" in C++ (similar to Dephi or C++ Builder). It is almost complete, but I have silly problem. Problem is with automatic cast from Property class to property type class. This not happen for every types - for example int works as expected. But std::string fail for not reimplemented operators. I can overcome this problem by: static_cast<std::string&>(lObject.mStringProperty) , but it is talkative and cumber some and I feel awful when I program like this. So, something like this not compile at all: lObject.mStringProperty += std::string(" A to dopiero!!!"); // Failed with g++ Error is: /home/szyk/!-EnergoKod/!-Libs/EnergoKodProperty/Tests/Src/Main.cpp: In function 'int main()': /home/szyk/!-EnergoKod/!-Libs/EnergoKodProperty/Tests/Src/Main.cpp:81:29: error: no match for 'operator+=' (operand types are 'Property<WithProperties, std::__cxx11::basic_string<char> >' and 'std::__cxx11::string {aka std::__cxx11::basic_string<char>}') lObject.mStringProperty += std::string(" A to dopiero!!!"); // Failed with g++ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ But some thing like this: lObject.mIntProperty += 1; Works fine! If you are interested and if you can help me please clone this tiny Cmake project from github.com: https://github.com/SzykCech4/EnergoKodProperty.git Note: That project contain Tests subdir with test project - you should enable BUILD_TESTS option in main CMakeLists.txt in order to compile this simple test. thanks in advance and best regards Szyk Cech |
| Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com>: May 30 10:23AM -0700 On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 2:11:36 PM UTC-3, Szyk Cech wrote: .. > If you are interested and if you can help me please clone this tiny > Cmake project from github.com: I did some experiments with properties in the past (November 2012) http://thradams.com/properties2.htm but this is just for fun, I don't recommend to use it. |
| Szyk Cech <szykcech@spoko.pl>: May 30 07:58PM +0200 > http://thradams.com/properties2.htm Very interesting! Thanks! > but this is just for fun, I don't recommend to use it. But what is wrong with this idea?!? |
| Szyk Cech <szykcech@spoko.pl>: May 30 08:08PM +0200 I look for your implementation, and I doubt whether overload all operators is desired. In standard (e.g. in Qt) properties we have just 3 functions: getter, setter and notifier. But with every possible operators we have over dozen functions! |
| Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com>: May 30 11:26AM -0700 On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 2:58:58 PM UTC-3, Szyk Cech wrote: > Very interesting! Thanks! > > but this is just for fun, I don't recommend to use it. > But what is wrong with this idea?!? If it is not part of the language It doesn't follow the KISS principle. If it was part of the language I think it would just add more ways of doing something and C++ is already full of features. |
| "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: May 30 05:58PM +0200 On 30.05.2019 14:29, Tim Rentsch wrote: > behavior" in the actual machine. Behavior being defined means we > know what the program /should/ do, not what running the program > /will/ do. [snip] Consider dererefencing a nullpointer outside a `typeid` expression. One doesn't know whether it will be a nullpointer until run-time. This is certainly (all agree) undefined behavior, and it's about behavior of a particular executing instance of the program, at a particular point in the execution, not about the program itself as such. Cheers!, - Alf |
| 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