- newbie question: exceptions - 1 Update
- Why does this work on Xcode ??? - 4 Updates
| red floyd <dont.bother@its.invalid>: Aug 26 10:29AM -0700 On 8/23/2019 11:32 PM, Rosario19 wrote: > is dinamically created and free > and if one doesn't know how many leak his/her progam has > but for remain it seems ok If you design your classes properly and use RAII, you will not have leaks. Also, by using the Standard Library, you should be able to avoid using new/delete directly, again, avoiding leaks. |
| James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu>: Aug 26 12:43AM -0400 On 8/25/19 7:27 AM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: >> "observable behaviour" is in regards to the standards. It does /not/ >> mean "behaviour observed by the user". > In your opinion results are not part of observable behavior. No, certain kinds of results do qualify as observable behavior. The problem is not the observable behavior, except insofar as stack usages does NOT qualify as such. The problem is resource limits, and on systems which use them, stack is definitely a resource with a finite limit. Because an implementation is excused from executing programs correctly when resource limits are exceeded, the requirement that observable behavior must occur as specified by the standard applies only when enough resources are available to execute the program. The standard imposes no requirements on the minimum amount of resources that must be available, nor on the maximum amount that may be required. In fact, the standard says nothing at all about the particular resource (stack space) that is relevant to this thread. Therefore, the fact that a recursive implementation of a piece of code may require more resources than an iterative one does not render translation of iterative code into a recursive implementation non-conforming. So long as both ways of implementing the code produce the required observable behavior when sufficient resources are available, it doesn't matter, as far as standard conformance is concerned, that the amount of resources required to produce that behavior is radically different for the two algorithms. That's purely an issue of QoI, outside the scope of the C++ standard. It was never intended to be the case that knowing that an implementation of C++ is fully conforming would be sufficient to ensure that the implementation is useful for any particular purpose (or indeed, for any purpose whatsoever). Too many things that are relevant to usefulness are outside the scope of the C++ standard, starting with the execution time of C++ code, which is completely unspecified. If you consider the C++ standard to be impractical, that's because it was never intended to be practical in that sense. You need to also evaluate the Quality of Implementation (QoI) of a fully conforming implementation before you can determine whether it's actually useful for anything. |
| "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Aug 26 11:51AM +0200 On 25.08.2019 23:32, David Brown wrote: > Do you /really/ think people would waste time concocting a web of lies > and deceits in a technical Usenet thread? That's proved again and again. Including in this thread. > To what purpose? I don't know, because it's apparently irrational. My pet theory is that it springs from the basic human instincts, in particular the strongest one, that of belonging to and defending a group. But then there is also the copy-cat behaviors and other even more unfathomable reasons. > Do you think I (and others whom you also have accused of various types of > attack) am conducting some sort of personal vendetta against you, > perhaps to tarnish your reputation on Usenet? No, that's not in your nature. I was surprised some weeks ago when I first saw this kind of irrationality from you, but that was because it didn't have a context. Now there is a context with your innuendo etc. forming part of a herd response: first someone in another thread, which I don't recall exactly what, then shortly after Tim in this thread pointed out that disagreement with his meaningless notion (that you've not adopted) mean to think one was smarter than everybody on the committee, i.e. that I'm a megalomanicac; then someone else in this thread with innuendo that he was afraid to respond to me, i.e. that I'm a bully; then you also in this thread asserting that I'm an inexperienced novice and that by proving the provable lies of yours, I am most likely paranoid. Even though I don't remember the other-thread first, the upshot from this thread is that I'm an inexperienced novice who happens to be a megalomaniac paranoid bully. > Do you perhaps think I am trying to look good by making you look bad? You have made yourself look bad, by jumping on the bandwagon. > Do you think I am so insecure that I will lie myself into a deeper > hole rather than admit to being shown to be wrong? Or do you have > some other theory? Few people lie without very good reason That happens to be contrary to established stats. Most people lie in everyday conversations. The difference is that those lies are not necessarily designed to have negative impact for others. E.g., first google result about that, <url: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-06/uoma-urf061002.php>, "UMass researcher finds most people lie in everyday conversation". > - what do you think my reasons are? Given that this has been an avalanche of quite sudden onset, comprising at least 4 persons in the "we use C a lot and love gcc" camp using strongly negative ad hominem attacks, I think it's probably connected to a feeling of protecting that group or a larger group. Maybe I've insulted some of you, or maybe I was too hard against the first person. Something like that. Anyway I believe it's instinct-driven behavior. > Let me give you a clue - you are not /that/ important that anyone would > bother lying for your sake. Here you go again, speculating that (1) I think I'm a very important person. That's on top of the speculations so far that I'm (2) an inexperienced (3) novice who is (4) a paranoid (5) megalomaniac. Have you heard the expression, to "butter the bacon"? :-D <url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYns5vR3QuQ> * * * But of course this shows to any reader, e.g. a prospective employer, not that I am any of those things, but that I clearly fail to fit in with a group of C/C++ (as opposed to pure C++) programmers; that I fail to accept a nonsense belief in order to fit in, which is often important in Norway; and that I have been subject to the said group's herd exclusion. Happily that doesn't matter. Cheers, - Alf |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Aug 26 01:26PM +0200 On 26/08/2019 11:51, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: >> Do you perhaps think I am trying to look good by making you look bad? > You have made yourself look bad, by jumping on the bandwagon. Then I'm jumping off. I haven't been lying, and I haven't been insulting you or attacking you. If you feel that I have, then I think that says more about you than it does about me. And since I have no desire to attack or insult you, but apparently have done so unintentionally when trying to discuss technicalities of the C++ language and tools, I guess it's better not to discuss C++ with you. I am not a "plonker", and will continue to read your posts (sometimes you write things that are interesting or inspirational to me), and I might well reply to you in the future. But for now at least, this thread is better off ending. > Happily that doesn't matter. On that we agree. |
| Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>: Aug 26 09:53AM -0700 >> very much swimming upstream here: do you really want to say you are >> smarter than all the people who have participated in the C and C++ >> working groups to standardize these languages? I am still in the process of reading through the cascade of downstream messages, but I wanted to respond to this one item and try to get it out of the way. > * The idea that I'm arguing a view at odds with the standard. I'm > not. Check how many in this group agree with your view of UB: that's > 0. The comment of mine quoted above has nothing to do with undefined behavior or your ideas about it. You have misunderstood the context of the comment. > blah. If that were the case then all those non-committee members who > have filed Defect Reports against the standard, must be megalomaniacs > who think they're very very smart. That's just not so. First, I never said you think you're smarter than everyone who has worked on the C or C++ standards. Second, I never said someone who thinks the Standard is flawed in some way (and thus in contradiction to all the committee members who have worked on it) must be wrong about that. You have misheard me. ISTM that often what you hear doesn't match what I said; whether or not it happens often, it did happen in this case. As regards defect reports, several items are worth noting. One, most defect reports are filed by people either who are on the committee or who have spent extensive time working with them. Two, a lot of defect reports are responded to by saying, in essence, "this isn't a problem, the standard is fine." (I don't know what the percentages are, for any of the classes of filers.) Three, most defect reports involve issues that are odd corner cases in one way or another, and probably just got overlooked. In contrast, the notion of observable behavior is a core issue, and undoubtedly one that has been given a lot of attention and serious thought. The people who worked on C89-C99 are by nature a practical, pragmatic bunch, and not particularly given to academic flights of fancy. Given that the notion of observable behavior (not the name, but the ideas behind it) has survived essentially unchanged to the present day, the idea that it is impractical or overly academic in nature is rightly regarded with some skepticism. And that's all I was saying. > * It's a purely social argument. It isn't a social argument; rather it is an argument of technical competence and one reflecting the nature of the people who worked on the early C standards. If anything, your argument that my ideas about undefined behavior must be wrong because no one in comp.lang.c++ agrees with me is a social argument. Even if it were true (which it isn't) that no one here agrees with me, comp.lang.c++ is a social collection of people, as are the subsets that choose to participate in various threads and topics. So if anyone is making a social argument, it's you. |
| 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