- Best book for STL in C++ - 1 Update
- Response video to Anton Petrov 0037 - 7 Updates
- maybe a stupid question - 5 Updates
| Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>: Apr 07 05:38PM -0500 On 4/7/2021 1:50 PM, Sahej singh wrote: > Can somebody please suggest the best book on STL in C++? I have used "The C++ Standard Library Extensions: A Tutorial And Reference" by Pete Becker for reference over the years. https://www.amazon.com/Standard-Library-Extensions-Tutorial-Reference/dp/0321412990 There is an errata at: http://www.petebecker.com/tr1book/ Lynn |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Apr 07 01:46PM -0400 Scientists have discovered large pockets of something exists deep within the Earth. Apparently it's come as a shock to many of them: Anton's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTPaKpvxnP4 I explain the source of those pockets via the Solar System Assembly Line and manufactured Earths: My 0037 response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqezC0PqVu8 My 0036 response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Okv6YPu6AHQ -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.REMOVETHISBIT.co.uk>: Apr 07 08:50PM +0100 On 07/04/2021 18:46, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > Line and manufactured Earths: > My 0037 response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqezC0PqVu8 > My 0036 response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Okv6YPu6AHQ Nope. Continental drift does not require the Earth to "grow in size". I stopped watching your video as soon as you made this fundamental mistake. You also claimed again that your solar system assembly line bullshit is a "theory": it isn't a theory, it is a hypothesis at best and a deluded rant at worst. Your wrongness is fractal in nature. /Flibble -- 😎 |
| "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Apr 07 09:59PM +0200 Please stop posting respondes to the nutcases, /in the group/. On 07.04.2021 21:50, Mr Flibble wrote: |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Apr 07 04:54PM -0400 On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 20:50:59 +0100 > > My 0037 response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqezC0PqVu8 > > My 0036 response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Okv6YPu6AHQ > Nope. Continental drift... Continental drift is one component of what's happened in our Earth's history. It's not the main component. It's a fairly recent component as the size of the Earth is apparently fixed now, and has been for at least hundreds of years. So the movement we see today is movement on their isolated edges, but those edges come back to original lines which grew and formed the creation of new sea floor as things spread out. Going back far enough, the continents all came together. I had the same teaching you did, Leigh. But I didn't just accept is as gospel truth. When I later encountered evidence that the sea floor shows signs the Earth grew, I investigated it and it's brought me to this place. The theory could still be wrong, but it hasn't been debunked yet. People keep espousing things like you do, which also aren't proof. They're just theories that are widely accepted. And now we have Anton reporting that scientists have discovered previously unknown pockets deep in the Earth. My response videos to Anton explain what they are and why they're there. God really is real, Leigh. There is evidence of Him in our own solar system when viewed through the lens of increasing knowledge and understanding. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.REMOVETHISBIT.co.uk>: Apr 07 10:53PM +0100 On 07/04/2021 21:54, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > God really is real, Leigh. There is evidence of Him in our own solar > system when viewed through the lens of increasing knowledge and > understanding. So many assertions made without evidence that can be dismissed without evidence, and summarily are so. You have nothing but delusion; it is a sorry sight to behold. /Flibble -- 😎 |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Apr 07 06:05PM -0400 On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 22:53:14 +0100 > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqezC0PqVu8 My 0036 response: > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Okv6YPu6AHQ > So many assertions made without evidence... That's why I state it's a theory. And why I'm asking for people with real evidence and hard proof (Biblically or scientifically) to disprove it, to point out something we know for a fact that makes it absolutely impossible. There isn't any such evidence so far. Just more theory, things we believe, that contradict it. So for now ... it remains a theory. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.REMOVETHISBIT.co.uk>: Apr 07 11:20PM +0100 On 07/04/2021 23:05, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > There isn't any such evidence so far. Just more theory, things we > believe, that contradict it. > So for now ... it remains a theory. No, fucktard, as I have explained three times already, fucktard, theories explain aspects of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method; what you have doesn't do that so you haven't got a fucking theory, what you have is a fruit loop hypothesis that isn't in the slightest bit scientific. /Flibble -- 😎 |
| alessandro volturno <alessandro.volturno@libero.it>: Apr 07 08:47AM +0200 Il 06/04/2021 23:29, Keith Thompson ha scritto: > has undefined behavior if the input is > "100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000" (unless int is > surprisingly large in your implementation). Yes, there is. That's because codeblocks (which I use a graphical frontend to gdb) says: "Setting breakpoints Debugger name and version: GNU gdb (GDB) 8.1 Child process PID: 6704 In ?? () () Cannot find bounds of current function " and itoa() function is not part of ANSI C standard as it is reported here: https://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cstdlib/itoa/?kw=itoa |
| Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>: Apr 07 02:02AM -0700 > Il 06/04/2021 23:29, Keith Thompson ha scritto: [...] > In ?? () () > Cannot find bounds of current function > " Um, how is that relevant? > and itoa() function is not part of ANSI C standard as it is reported here: > https://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cstdlib/itoa/?kw=itoa Why does ANSI C matter if you're writing C++? (If you're writing C, you want comp.lang.c.) itoa() isn't the only alternative to scanf(). In C, there's strtol() and friends. And there are a number of C++ alternatives, some of which have already been mentioned. You can use C library functions from C++, but it's usually better to use C++-specific functions unless there's some specific reason not to. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */ |
| alessandro volturno <alessandro.volturno@libero.it>: Apr 07 01:42PM +0200 Il 07/04/2021 11:02, Keith Thompson ha scritto: >> Cannot find bounds of current function >> " > Um, how is that relevant? It is because if I cannot debug I need a way to print the status of a variable on screen. And since GRX doesn't allow to print other things other than strings of text, I needed a function to convert from numerical format to text. Do you think that this debugging message is due to the library built from source (probably) without the debugging info? > itoa() isn't the only alternative to scanf(). In C, there's strtol() > and friends. And there are a number of C++ alternatives, some of which > have already been mentioned. Thank you for this alternative, I use just a few of C++ or C std libraries, I have heard of that but I didn't think of it because the first to spot in my mind was atoi() and its reverse, itoa(). > You can use C library functions from C++, but it's usually better to use > C++-specific functions unless there's some specific reason not to. I posted here on comp.lang.C++ because when I write C++ code this is the place where I search for help. So this time, even if the project is written in C, I didn't pay attention to which newsgroup to post into. |
| Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Apr 07 03:12PM +0300 07.04.2021 14:42 alessandro volturno kirjutas: > variable on screen. And since GRX doesn't allow to print other things > other than strings of text, I needed a function to convert from > numerical format to text. That's strange, because scanf() does not convert numbers to text, rather it does the opposite. For converting numbers to text there are functions like sprintf() and std::to_string(). |
| alessandro volturno <alessandro.volturno@libero.it>: Apr 07 02:56PM +0200 Il 07/04/2021 14:12, Paavo Helde ha scritto: > it does the opposite. > For converting numbers to text there are functions like sprintf() and > std::to_string(). That was a fault of mine... I was expressing my needs but I wrote the wrong function name. And I do realize it only now. So it is now clearer the question of Mr. K. Thompson asking me why to use scanf. I was still thinking to sprintf... Anyway the problem is now solved. I have done what I was trying to do. Here on the newsgrup the tone of the arguments is really high, I have just rookie questions that I express even worse than that. But I have to thank you all, because I've always found the right help. alessandro |
| 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