- Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness - 1 Update
- standard error messages in a std::string or in a const char * - 1 Update
- Project review - 2 Updates
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Sep 12 10:07PM > line that is immediately adjacent to 3.0 on its right side. This geometric > point is an infinitesimally larger than 3.0: encoded as the first point in > the interval: (3,4] That would be "the smallest real number larger than 3". Which does not exist. Infinitesimals (no matter how you want to define them) are not going to help you. That number still does not exist, even if you add infinitesimals to your number system. It doesn't matter how you try to twist it, it's not going to work. You are not going to make that number exist. Not with infinitesimals, not with anything. The set of real numbers is genuinely larger than the set of natural numbers because there is no bijection between the two sets. (This is in contrast with, for example, the set of rational numbers, or the set of algebraic numbers, which are equally large as the set of natural numbers because there is a bijection between them.) |
| Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>: Sep 12 02:41PM -0700 > https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/error/errno_macros > And C defines only EDOM, EILSEQ and ERANGE > https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/error/errno_macros The C standard only requires EDOM, EILSEQ, and ERANGE, but C implementations can, and commonly do, define additional macros. Both C and POSIX specifically permit additional E* macros to be defined. I don't see such a permission in the C++ standard, though I could be missing it. (I'm a little surprised C++ mandates the POSIX error codes, given that C++ can be implemented on non-POSIX systems.) -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> Will write code for food. void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */ |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Sep 12 08:03PM >> Executable size is a useless metric. Why do you think it is >> either useful or interesting? >https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mark+cppnow+vmware&t=h_&ia=videos&iax=videos&iai=vGV5u1nxqd8 If you can't explain it in your own words, fine. I've no interest in watching some random video. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 12 04:14PM -0400 On 9/12/2019 4:03 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mark+cppnow+vmware&t=h_&ia=videos&iax=videos&iai=vGV5u1nxqd8 > If you can't explain it in your own words, fine. I've no interest > in watching some random video. But you do have interest in commenting on it just to be mean to Brian? Have you ever considered what you're actually doing with your life, Scott? This really is your footprint on the world. You really are hurting people and being mean to them. So, you have no interest in learning and growing and sharing in someone like Brian's life, but you do automatically have much interest in being mean to him, and writing things that hurt and harm people on the inside? (based on a sampling of your many posts this is a sane conclusion) It's no way to be. And it speaks volumes of the view of self you possess. You are better than you think you are, Scott. You don't need to be mean to people to make yourself feel better. You don't need to drag people down and put them under your heel to have worth and value in this world. You are valuable in your own person, by your own abilities. You can be nice and helpful to people and make yourself feel better. You should try it sometime. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| 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