- "Current Proposals for C++17" - 8 Updates
- Xn project v002 is released - 1 Update
- Statistics about C++ - 2 Updates
- send email and socket programming - 1 Update
- Incrimenting enum type in MS VS 2015 - 1 Update
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Feb 28 07:03PM -0800 On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 3:19:24 AM UTC-5, Christian Gollwitzer wrote: > Am 28.02.16 um 02:25 schrieb woodbrian77@gmail.com: > > Please don't swear here. > I don't understand, why you oppose against fucking. Just guessing, but I don't think he's objecting to the word as such, I think what he's objecting to is the dilution of the word, such as in "Fuck!" after hitting your thumb with a hammer. The counter argument, of course, is that research shows that the hypoalgesic effect of swearing can help reduce the sensation of pain, c.f https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoalgesic_effect_of_swearing. Daniel |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Feb 29 09:04AM +0100 On 29/02/16 04:03, Daniel wrote: > hitting your thumb with a hammer. The counter argument, of course, is that > research shows that the hypoalgesic effect of swearing can help reduce the > sensation of pain, c.f https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoalgesic_effect_of_swearing. You mean you think he'd be happy with swear words as long as they are used solely for their literal meanings? I believe that would apply to religious terms - I'm sure he has nothing against saying "Jesus" in church, while objecting to its use as a hypoalgesic. I really don't think that applies to "fuck", however. No, I think Brian just has a particularly extreme view on swearing out of context. Most of us have unwritten rules as to when we think swearing is appropriate or not. When we watch a stand-up comedian, we expect a good deal of colourful language. But we would be surprised to hear a newsreader tell us "the economy has gone to fuck", even if it is a clear, accurate and easily understood news item. And I think most of us here feel that Usenet posts typically don't warrant the emphasis of swearing - but the occasional light swear is fine. There are other newsgroups were some posters are, quite frankly, unpleasant to read. What distinguishes Brian is that he invariably reacts with a pointless complaint for every tiny swear word that is usually unnoticed by anyone else. And his complaints are invariably followed by someone else adding more swearing, just to bug him - he never seems to learn, and his complaint posts are far more annoying than any swearing in this newsgroup. |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Feb 28 06:26PM > Why people are insistent on trying to jam every possible library into > the standard is beyond me. That got me thinking: There are many things that do not really belong into the C++ standard, but are nevertheless things that would be very useful and people often request. Perhaps a kind of compromise could work: A "secondary" specification defined by the standard committee, of optional libraries. In other words, libraries that a standard-conforming compiler is not forced to implement, but if it does, then it has to implement it as specified (so that all programs written to use said library will compile and work). --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- |
| Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid>: Feb 28 02:05PM -0800 On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 09:19:10 +0100, Christian Gollwitzer >through which we all were made. It is scientifically proven the cause of >all our being. > Christian I think this might go back to the myth of Adam and Eve and original sin. They were both given life without fucking being involved. Then they ate of the tree of knowledge and were both fucked from that day forward. Damned by God and driven from Eden, it's now a sin in the eyes of religious fanatics to eat the wrong foods, fuck, wank off, fuck thy neighbor's wife or do anything you fucking like of which the pious might disapprove. |
| "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Feb 29 11:21AM +0100 On 29.02.2016 09:04, David Brown wrote: > [snip] his complaints are invariably followed by someone else adding > more swearing, just to bug him - he never seems to learn, There is the question of who is training whom. Pavlov's dog trained Pavlov to ring a bell at feeding time. As a reward to Pavlov the dog simply salivated each time Pavlov rang the bell at feeding time, and after a few weeks or months Pavlov would ring the bell /every/ feeding time. But while psychologists are so easy to train that even a quite famous one could be trained by a dog, programmers who are Usenet denizens... Well. Still. The question is open. Cheers, - Alf |
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Feb 29 02:46AM -0800 On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 5:21:41 AM UTC-5, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > Pavlov's dog trained Pavlov to ring a bell at feeding time. As a reward to > Pavlov the dog simply salivated each time Pavlov rang the bell at feeding > time. As my background is in economics, I've always viewed the behavior of Skinner and his rat as a freely entered into agreement: I'll give you food pellets in exchange for you pull on a lever. I prefer that interpretation to that of stimulus-responsibus. > But while psychologists are so easy to train My sister tells me that her psychology classmates successfully trained their professor to stop pacing at the lectern, by putting down their notebooks and pens and affecting disinterest whenever she stepped beyond a prescribed boundary. Over time they narrowed the boundary, until stationary. Daniel |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Feb 29 02:29PM >"Current Proposals for C++17" > https://meetingcpp.com/index.php/br/items/current-proposals-for-c17.html Ah, such lovely thinking: "Also, it shows that the committee is willing to not only add things, but also to deprecate, and remove and break things in the future. Which is great..." |
| red floyd <no.spam@its.invalid>: Feb 29 10:09AM -0800 On 2/28/2016 10:26 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: > libraries that a standard-conforming compiler is not forced to implement, > but if it does, then it has to implement it as specified (so that all > programs written to use said library will compile and work). Sort of like the various "annexes" to the Ada spec? |
| wij@totalbb.net.tw: Feb 29 08:13AM -0800 Xn project tries to develop a more uniform language that can be used in almost anywhere. It can be used for general files (e.g. executables), general communication language, or even for an alive program that can grow. Xn project is licensed as Public Domain (Historical Fact Principle). Anyone can start anything from Xn, as long as the historical fact is maintained. Suggestions are also welcome. https://sourceforge.net/projects/systemnode/ |
| Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com>: Feb 29 09:54AM -0300 On 02/25/2016 09:52 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > They list data sources. They say nothing about how the research was > done. Nor do they discuss how the research was aggregated. > Completely different topics. My mistake, I wanted to say was what your are saying, how the research was done (clearly the sources are listed, but without any additional data. There is no link between the assertions and reddit or stackoverflow for example) Regards -- Cholo Lennon Bs.As. ARG |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Feb 29 09:32AM -0500 On 2/29/2016 7:54 AM, Cholo Lennon wrote: > data. There is no link between the assertions and reddit or > stackoverflow for example) > Regards Sorry, I misunderstood you. One of the things that many miss is good science (and surveys are a branch of statistics, which a science) requires repeatability - that is, an experiment must be repeatable. To do that, there has to be enough detail to recreate the experiment. In surveys, this includes selection of the audience, wording of the questions and aggregating the results. Any of them can skew the results considerably. And the sorry part is, here in the United States, politics is very often based on questionable "surveys" - by politicians, media, lobbyists, non-profits with a political agenda... the list goes on and on. I guess it's why I'm so negative towards "surveys" like this. I've seen way too many purposely biased to get the desired answer. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| alexo <alelvb@inwind.it>: Feb 29 02:16PM +0100 Il 14/02/2016 18:01, alexo ha scritto: > Hello group, > I've written for UNIX a little program [FLTK] that needs to send an > order through e-mail. [...] I've found the bug! PEBKAC !! cutting and pasting the payload source function I had forgot to select a part of it. The compiler told me I had left an unmatched brace so I added it leaving a mangled function that was doing nothing. And so the infinite apparent data transmission. All is well that ends well Thank you all for your help and patience. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Feb 29 09:12AM +0100 On 28/02/16 23:57, JiiPee wrote: >> 1 > Not sure how safe this approach is and is it recommended? I mean, what > if somebody changes EAST to say, 5 later on? It is not safe if the enumerated states are anything other than contiguous from 0, or if they don't have an appropriate order in their definition. It also involves a good deal more casts if you are using strongly typed enums. I don't like the idea of putting an extra marker like TOP into the enums. TOP is /not/ a direction - yet you (Stefan) have told the compiler that it /is/ a direction, because it is a member of the type. Don't lie to your compiler, or to your readers. It also means that you lose the help your compiler could give you in spotting errors, such as using the "-Wswitch-enum" warning in gcc. Making the ++ operator explicit with a switch statement solves all these problems, though it is more verbose. > In any case, I think with this approach there should be heavy comments > near direction to warn about this, that not to change the integer values. Agreed. |
| 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