Monday, March 5, 2018

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 5 topics

wyniijj@gmail.com: Mar 04 11:51PM -0800

woodb...@gmail.com於 2018年3月4日星期日 UTC+8下午11時59分33秒寫道：
 
> > but latter comes the new
> > (2nd)testament says God can turn stones into jews...?)
 
> G-d made man from dirt/clay.
 
Those mentioned biblical analogy portion was mainly from my vague memory
of an inexact book [THE LIVING BIBLE, TYNDALE], feel free to correct it.
An interesting thing when searching for that dust covered book, I found
another book, the 3rd testament [The BOOK OF MORMON], that's what I
referred to as the branch.
 
> > there might even be no Truth/History at all.
 
> I have a history and so do you. Your family has a
> history and so does mine.
 
Yes, we have our own history, family history. Even they are personal
and also suffer from changes or evolution, despite so slowly and
undiscernible. I agree we don't like that. But we live in It
(there is a bigger change of History(written, or in memory) going
on at least in China which I really don't like but indifferently
seeing it happening.)
 
Even though the apparent wording are not about C++. In part I still
'personize?'(sorry, not know the right English word) those things
for C++ (or the standard lib) If you want to see it, substitute with
C++ terms. Not because I like to play words but because I don't know
how to express it.
 
 
wyniijj@gmail.com: Mar 04 11:55PM -0800

woodb...@gmail.com於 2018年3月5日星期一 UTC+8上午12時50分41秒寫道：
 
> > I tried downloading several versions of your software,
> > but got this: "Oh snap! We can't process this request."
 
> I just tried again and was able to get it.
 
Not long after libwy-0.53 was uploaded. Sourceforge.net seemed to
start its 'maintenance mode'. At this post, sourceforge.net seemed
back to 'semi-normal', viewing from my web browser.
legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Mar 05 06:02PM

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
 
wyniijj@gmail.com spake the secret code
 
>libwy-0.53 is released:
>https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/
 
Despite all your semi-religious rambling, you've neglected to
succinctly say what this library does.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 04 04:29PM -0800

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 5:59:46 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
 
> There is more truth to be found in my house than there is in yours mate.
> In my house science trumps superstition and logic trumps irrational
> delusion.
 
All science confirms Biblical teaching.
 
There is a powerful enemy, Leigh. He is a liar. He is purposefully
teaching alternative ideas to the true things of God. He's of such
a kind of enemy that all who do not seek the truth will be deceived
by him.
 
In addition, he tries to deceive people to profess Christ with their
mouth, and do bad things in their life. In this way he makes it
easier for people to take a glance at the actions of those deceived
people, see their bad actions, and conclude that those bad things are
really what Christianity is, who Jesus is, say, "Nope! Not for me,"
and go away having been squarely fooled by Satan.q
 
The ones who press in past the lies, they are the ones who find the
truth. You're still stuck on "Lies Lane," Leigh, holding on to all
of the enemy's teachings you've heard taught to you as though it were
all truth throughout your whole life. You've never questioned it,
never asked, "Is this stuff I've been taught real? Or is it a lie
perpetrated against my soul as Christians claim?"
 
The truth knows. The lie lies.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 04 06:44PM -0600

>> In my house science trumps superstition and logic trumps irrational
>> delusion.
 
> All science confirms Biblical teaching.
 
It seems that I have to remind you of Hitchen's Razor again. That which is
asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I dismiss your
baseless assertion with the contempt that it deserves.
 
[snip]
 
/Flibble
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 04 05:11PM -0800

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 7:45:15 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
> It seems that I have to remind you of Hitchen's Razor again. That which is
> asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I dismiss your
> baseless assertion with the contempt that it deserves.
 
The evidence is everywhere, Leigh. Literally everywhere. You do
not see it because the enemy has convinced you of his explanations
for things, resulting in his claws being in your mind, attacking
and infecting all of your thoughts with falseness and lies.
 
You will self-condemn your own soul unless you seek the truth.
 
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A20-25&version=KJV
 
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made, even his eternal power and
Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him
not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in
their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
 
This is you. This is all people ... until they seek the truth.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 05 02:11AM -0600

>> asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I dismiss your
>> baseless assertion with the contempt that it deserves.
 
> The evidence is everywhere, Leigh. Literally everywhere.
 
Another assertion easily dismissed.
 
/Flibble
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 05 03:32AM -0800

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 3:11:43 AM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> baseless assertion with the contempt that it deserves.
 
> > The evidence is everywhere, Leigh. Literally everywhere.
 
> Another assertion easily dismissed.
 
Just some evidence of creation:
 
God of Wonderr
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAuGRhZsMCs
 
The Bombadier Beetle mixes two-part chemicals in real-time, like
millisecond injector pulses, to shoot focused and aimed explosions
from a specially designed and protected nozzle area.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
leigh.v.johnston@googlemail.com: Mar 05 04:15AM -0800

That is entirely explainable through the evolutionary process so is not evidence of creation.
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 05 04:54AM -0800

Leigh, where is there evidence of evolution?
 
Where have we observed it actually happening?
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Mar 05 07:15AM -0800

On Monday, 5 March 2018 14:55:25 UTC+2, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> Leigh, where is there evidence of evolution?
 
> Where have we observed it actually happening?
 
The difference between fantasy and science is that science is
based on facts of real life and facts are easy to verify with
observations. Denial of apparent (to anyone, adult or kid) facts
is one of major reasons why the biblical literalists seem
repulsively backwards and stupid people.
 
It is trivial to find enough papers about evidence for life-long
reading. Laboratory experiment of Lenski:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
 
Also movie made by Kishony:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cmp2m4HzTo
 
What is there to deny? Evolution just happens.
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Mar 05 03:29PM

>On Monday, 5 March 2018 14:55:25 UTC+2, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> Leigh, where is there evidence of evolution?
 
>> Where have we observed it actually happening?
 
The answer is as simple as "Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus"
Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Mar 05 07:46AM -0800

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 6:33:17 AM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
 
> The Bombadier Beetle mixes two-part chemicals in real-time, like
> millisecond injector pulses, to shoot focused and aimed explosions
> from a specially designed and protected nozzle area.
 
I think what you're saying is that because something exists that you don't
understand, you attribute it to some undefined entity that you could have
called "X", but instead choose to call "god". That's fine, as long as you
understand that "X" or god are undefined concepts and have no known
properties. It would be silly to make the leap that X somehow corresponds to
one among many ancient mythical entities.

Many things aren't understood, for example, nobody has a compelling theory
about consciousness, what it is, or how it came to be. It's actually a
pretty astonishing thing to see these animated bits of matter walking down
the street. As science advances, more things can be removed from "X" and
added to the class of known things. But it's unlikely, and not necessary,
that X will ever shrink to nothing.
 
Daniel
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 05 08:42AM -0800

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 10:15:39 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
 
> Also movie made by Kishony:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cmp2m4HzTo
 
> What is there to deny? Evolution just happens.
 
What you cite here is the very point I'm trying to make. We have
never seen evolution, but only adaptation. The design of the organism
allows for it to adapt to its surroundings rapidly, but fundamentally
it is still an E. Coli. It hasn't evolved into a dog, or even some
pre-cursor to a dog.
 
There is now information science being realized in genetics research,
such that there is an exchange of information, protocols, encode and
decode systems, which are mated in physical protein structures which
are created at the cellular level. These are controlled with very
very complex and intricate encodings in the genome.
 
Some of the genomes they are studying are flexible and are able to
handle adaptation, but most of it is not, and especially so on a
large organism like a person, animal, or plant.
 
It's not evolution. It's only adaptation.
 
If Darwin was right, we should see continual production of inter-
mediate forms of life from the former kind to the newer kind. We
have how many thousands of species and variations of kinds on this
Earth? Yet we don't see birds evolving into not-quite-birds, let
alone other-than-birds. They simply adapt to their surroundings,
based on how they were designed to adapt.
 
Give a bird an environment where a longer beak is needed, and those
with longer beaks begin to appear. But give a bird an environment
where resistance to hard radiation is needed, and all of the birds
die.
 
Evolution does not work. It's a failed "science." It is a lie
that gained traction before we understood genetics. And what we
are seeing today in all cases is ONLY adaptation. It is never
evolution. It is never the introduction of new information from
nothing. It is only the borrowing of existing information from
some sources, along with mutations, all of which ultimately prove
harmful, even if they may seem to be beneficial in the short-term.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 05 09:06AM -0800

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:43:09 AM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> are created at the cellular level. These are controlled with very
> very complex and intricate encodings in the genome.
 
> Some of the genomes they are studying are flexible and are able to
 
This refers to "some of the sequences in genomes."
 
> with longer beaks begin to appear. But give a bird an environment
> where resistance to hard radiation is needed, and all of the birds
> die.
 
This is because there is no variability in existence, no ability to
adapt to that new need, because it was never designed to handle that
kind of change. But the life in its various forms, deposited where
they are likely to be exposed to a particular range of variability
and need, these are provided for in their by-design location variables
built-in to their nature and ability to adapt.
 
> nothing. It is only the borrowing of existing information from
> some sources, along with mutations, all of which ultimately prove
> harmful, even if they may seem to be beneficial in the short-term.
 
By the way, if you all consider yourselves to be scientists, then
you should take a look at the evidence found in nature through
direct observation and see how it correlates to creation. There
has not been one thing seen in nature thus far that is not exactly
explained by creation as per the Biblical narrative. Everything
God has made fits into that which we have in the Bible.
 
Here's how we get variations in species, by the way. God designed
the variation into the master kinds, such that the original animals
contained all of the variability that would later be expressed, and
He placed an ability to auto-differentiate out to the various
species from the original master of its kind:
 
"One race, one blood" (referring to people, but it explains how
the process of diversification and adaptation to environments
works based on God's design -- Begins at 16:04):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbODW6XO8zY&t=16m4s
 
The enemy teaches you lies about "evolution" and things that do not
involve God and His design. "Everything's explainable by natural
processes if you just give it millions and millions of years."
 
God teaches you the truth. He designed things, put them here. Sin
has corrupted them, but in the original intent it was purposeful
for our pleasure and use, but today has turned.
 
When Jesus returns ... things will return to the way they were.
The wolf will lay down with the lamb. A child will sleep in a
den of vipers. And there will be no animosity between any of
them. It will be the paradise God created, and sin destroyed.
 
Each of you has the opportunity to be a part of that future.
The invitation goes out. Ask Jesus to forgive your sin, and you
too will receive forgiveness, eternal life, and be a part of the
way God intended for everything to be before sin entered in and
destroyed everything:
 
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+21&version=KJV
 
There's coming a new Earth:
 
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven
and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
 
And a New Jerusalem:
 
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God
out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
 
And a new relationship with God ... face-to-face (once sin is taken
away and the last man/woman is saved):
 
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the
tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them,
and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with
them, and be their God.
 
God will provide for all of us as He intended from the beginning.
The enemy is striving greatly to keep you from that end:
 
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there
shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither
shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed
away.
 
All things are being made new ... meaning this sinful existence does
not go on forever. Everything will be restored to what God intended
before sin entered in a destroyed everything. The things here are
temporary, and they are provided FOR US to come to faith, and be
saved. Once the last person is saved, then it's all destroyed and
replaced:
 
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things
new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and
faithful.
 
Now we see who God is. From beginning to ending, He has accomplished:
 
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning
and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain
of the water of life freely.
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God,
and he shall be my son.
 
But for those who reject truth, and embrace falseness:
 
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers,
and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall
have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
which is the second death.
 
It's literal Hellfire for those who will not receive the truth. But for
those who will, the very paradise of God is given because we (those who
acknowledge their sin, and ask forgiveness for it) are returned to a
right standing with God, by His cleansing us of our sin through His Son
Jesus, who did the hard work for us at the cross so that we could be set
free from the lie of the enemy, and the condemnation of our soul that
lying enemy set us on a course toward through sin.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 05 09:24AM -0800

At 14:01 this preacher explains how you can receive salvation,
eternal life, the new birth (birth into spirit):
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb363WRk_B0&t=14m1s
 
"I don't know what else to do, but I want to be saved... and
you'd be surprised what will start in your life at that very
moment. You may not be saved right then, but your life will
take a drastic change... I'm telling you that God's word will
beget you..."
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Mar 05 09:29AM -0800

On Monday, 5 March 2018 18:43:09 UTC+2, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> never seen evolution, but only adaptation. The design of the organism
> allows for it to adapt to its surroundings rapidly, but fundamentally
> it is still an E. Coli.
 
I already said that you will deny facts explained to you shown and
painted red if needed, doesn't help.
 
There were billions of E. Coli individuals in that video. Not a single
individual did adapt. The probes were taken, the DNAs sequenced,
the locations of mutations shown. Few were replicated with mutation
to be resistant to lethal concentration of antibiotic. Then from
descendants of these few, again few evolved to be resistant to 10
times of lethal concentration and so on until bacteria that were
resistant to 1000 times lethal concentration of antibiotic were
evolved with 11 days.
 
> It hasn't evolved into a dog, or even some
> pre-cursor to a dog.
 
Bacterial colonies can't evolve into dogs before our very eyes without
magic. Since magic does nowhere exist it can not happen.
Dogs were breed from domesticated wolves. Again genes have been
sequenced and trees of evolution drawn. If you are interested then
read.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)00432-7
Such things take thousands of years, not few weeks in laboratory.
 
Out of mercy I snip rest of your mindless denial ... like I said the crisis
of your religion lies in stupidity of its preachers. Who needs enemies
with so backwards friends?
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 05 10:01AM -0800

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 12:29:42 PM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > it is still an E. Coli.
 
> I already said that you will deny facts explained to you shown and
> painted red if needed, doesn't help.
 
I do not deny any facts. The facts themselves must be inerpreted.
I correct the incorrect explanation and beliefs as to the underlying
cause which drives the change that is observed. It is adaptation
only ... an allowance of movement from one form to another based on
environmental factors.
 
Watch the "One Race One Blood" video I posted and you can see how
the various species came from the master kind of each:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbODW6XO8zY&t=16m4s
 
It will teach you how it really happened, as is observable through
scientific evidence and observational science that can be proven
in a lab today.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Mar 05 06:01PM

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
 
"Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> spake the secret code
 
>That realization came now half a year /after/ publishing an article
>about it.
 
>Anyway, it's <url: https://github.com/alf-p-steinbach/Wrapped-stdlib> now.
 
alflib would be better :)
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Mar 05 05:42PM +1300

On 03/04/2018 10:36 PM, Gareth Owen wrote:
 
>> - The harder it is to test
 
> Hmmm. I'm not sure I agree with this. When testing a function, the
> only thing I need to know are the pre-conditions and post-conditions.
 
You also need to know the function's dependencies. Even a function with
simple preconditions and postconditions such as reading a file will have
dependencies such as what happens if open fails? What happens if read fails?
 
The more work a function has to do, the more numerous its dependencies
are likely to become. It will also have more code paths to test. I
guess an extreme example would be to say a single function image file
converter is easy to test give its preconditions and postconditions are
simple...
 
> Indeed, if we write our tests first, how can the test suite possibly
> depend on the function length?
 
It doesn't, you could end up with a large number of test cases for a
single function, but that isn't normally how things end up.
 
> if the language is sufficiently expressive (i.e. not C)]).
 
> Of course, modularity makes it easier to test sub-components during
> development...
 
Which was one of my (snipped) points!
 
--
Ian.
Egor <egor@ruby.local>: Mar 05 06:23PM +0200

> If you used a goto in my team, you would probably end up wearing a road
> code on your head for the week!
 
Blindly avoiding goto statement at all cost is a great example of cargo
cult programming. It's widely known that goto is usually frowned upon,
but not many know *why* it is considered a Bad Thing(tm).
 
Dijkstra's "Goto Statement Considered Harmful" popuralized the notion
that goto makes code unreadable. His argument was that it is difficutlt
for humans to visualize processes involving time, so to make code more
eadable, time should be roughly mapped to the position in program text.
With goto statement, it can't be guaranteed that the program text will
be ordered this way.
 
In other words, you *can* write sphagetti code with goto. However, this
doesn't mean that goto always results in such code. In fact, there are
multiple patterns, including the double-break, which read like a hack
when written in the best traditions of structured programming, while
the goto version is clean and straightforward.
 
To conclude, when used properly, goto doesnt sacrifice readability, but
actually improves it.
legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Mar 05 05:57PM

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
 
Egor <egor@ruby.local> spake the secret code
>eadable, time should be roughly mapped to the position in program text.
>With goto statement, it can't be guaranteed that the program text will
>be ordered this way.
 
It should be noted that at the time Dijkstra wrote his paper (1968),
languages supporting structured programming were not common and
structured programming itself was even less common. For background,
the Wikipedia page on Goto seems to do a good job:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goto>
 
Probably the most commonly used languages at the time were FORTRAN and
COBOL. I don't have data, but my feeling was that FORTRAN was more
widely used than COBOL at the time, but that could just be my
scientific oriented tastes selecting what I know about computing
history.
 
In 1968, I'd say that the FORTRAN most people used was FORTRAN 66 or
an earlier variant. FORTRAN 66 does not have structured block
statements; that wouldn't show up until FORTRAN 77 in a standardized
version.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortran>
 
>In other words, you *can* write sphagetti code with goto.
 
...and at the time Dijkstra wrote his paper, this was the common case.
FORTRAN 66 has GOTO, computed GOTO, assigned GOTO, single statement IF
(most often used with GOTO) and three-way (arithmetic) IF.
 
If you've ever seen BASIC or GOTO code from the 60s or 70s, it is
littered with GOTO statements and even having gotten used to the
programming language limitations, the control flow is difficult to
read, follow and understand.
 
From the current day perspective where block structures are ubiquitous
in nearly every programming language (even those lacking GOTO), it is
easy to poke sticks at Dijkstra's paper and rehabilitate GOTO. My
assertion is that anyone who'd seen the common code of the day is
happy to say goodbyte to GOTO :-).
 
About the only useful construct I can think of for which GOTO is
considered necessary is Duff's device. I haven't seen any studies
on a modern compiler that automatically unrolls loops to know if it is
any better than unrolling by hand for something like this.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duff%27s_device>
<http://wiki.c2.com/?DuffsDeviceInDuffsOwnWords> (ha ha ha ha, he was
dumping words into the command FIFO of an E&S Picture System II!)
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Mar 05 05:58PM

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
 
> Hmmm. I'm not sure I agree with this. When testing a function, the
> only thing I need to know are the pre-conditions and post-conditions.
 
You also need to know the internal branching structure of the
implementation to ensure that those pre and post conditions remain
true no matter how the function is called.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Mar 05 06:00PM

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
 
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> spake the secret code
>guess an extreme example would be to say a single function image file
>converter is easy to test give its preconditions and postconditions are
>simple...
 
Au contraire because the code that reads and writes image file formats
has lots of branches and data dependencies. :-)
 
So while it "looks simple" at the application layer, the underlying
file reader/writer code is quite complicated for anything but even the
most braindead of formats (e.g. raw RGB byte dump).
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
mcheung63@gmail.com: Mar 05 09:35AM -0800

Rick C. Hodgin於 2018年3月4日星期日 UTC+8上午9時51分42秒寫道：
> and Google Groups only.
 
> --
> Rick C. Hodgin
 
Rick C. Hodgin is a fucking asshole and keep spamming many different newsgroups
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.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)