Monday, December 30, 2019

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 1 update in 1 topic

Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>: Dec 30 05:22PM -0600

David Brown wrote:
>> David Brown wrote:
>>> Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> Ned Latham writes:
 
----snip----
 
> I only looked at the source code you linked - it is not complete,
 
Bullshit.
 
> because it is written in a sort-of C, sort-of C++, sort-of something
> else mix using your own macros.
 
That's noi reason for saying "incomplete".,
 
>>> as other people know it.
 
>> The documentation tells you that. And why.
 
> No, it does not.
 
Don't lie to me about what I wrote, you fuck.
 
>>> and the like, which are not defined anywhere.
 
>> Don't be stupider than you have to be, David.
 
> They are not defined in the source code you linked.
 
So? The statement is dead stupid.
 
> They are defined in
> the file "mcdef.h", which was not in the links (it is in the tarball
> that can be found by a little digging from your links).
 
There's a link to it in the documentation.
 
> thinks it helps to make one programming language look like another.
> Macros to try to make your C or C++ code like BASIC are /not/ a good
> idea, and never have been.
 
"BASIC"? You're a moron.
 
>> be totally independent of type (past, present and future). Pointers can do
>> that; templates cannot. They're a code bloat idea, anyway.
 
> Had you linked to the documentation, it would have told me that.
 
Hmph. All you had to do to see the whole site is use BS and ENTER in
the location bar.
 
> It says nothing about /why/ that might be a useful idea.
 
You're insane. Why would type-indepedence *not* be useful?
 
----idiocy snipped----
 
 
>> Those are design decisions too, idiot. The C++ library throws exceptions.
>> Exceptions are evil, especially in low-level code.
 
> RAII is orthogonal to exceptions.
 
It's bloat.
 
> was widely available. Some of your design decisions are reasonable
> enough for code from 1995 - but hardly examples of how to write C++ in
> this generation.
 
Mclib's not about C++.
 
>> behaviour.
 
> Yes, you mentioned that in your documentation. It was one of many
> incorrect statements.
 
Dream on, Bozo.
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: