| Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Nov 15 02:15PM +0200 14.11.2021 16:43 Alf P. Steinbach kirjutas: > behavior, while ill formed code -- is code that isn't well formed and > that isn't constrained to any behavior. A bit too circular for me. But I > guess syntactically invalid code must be ill-formed and cannot have UB. "UB" is behavior which is undefined by the C++ standard. Another standard or the implementation can define the behavior, making the program valid. I suspect "ill-formed" is meant for programs which cannot or should not be made valid by another standard or implementation. |
| Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>: Nov 15 08:46AM -0800 >> cause a program to be ill formed, but explicitly and specifically >> do not require a diagnostic. > Oh you're right, thanks. Sorry. No worries. Your description is mostly right, and in fact I think it should _always_ be right. That there are exceptions is IMO a flaw in how the C++ standard is written. > and that isn't constrained to any behavior. A bit too circular > for me. But I guess syntactically invalid code must be ill-formed > and cannot have UB. To be fair, any C++ construction that is ill-formed does require a diagnostic, unless there is a specific statement that no diagnostic is required. (Disclaimer: I am not 100% sure that the previous sentence holds true in the case of violations of the One Definition Rule.) |
| Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>: Nov 15 08:55AM -0800 > program valid. > I suspect "ill-formed" is meant for programs which cannot or should > not be made valid by another standard or implementation. AFAICT any program construction that makes a program ill-formed is the same as undefined behavior, except that the ill-formed cases require a diagnostic (unless the C++ standard explicitly says otherwise for the specific case in question). Consider for example paragraph 8 in section 4.1: A conforming implementation may have extensions (including additional library functions), provided they do not alter the behavior of any well-formed program. Implementations are required to diagnose programs that use such extensions that are ill-formed according to this document. Having done so, however, they can compile and execute such programs. |
| olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Nov 14 10:53PM -0600 On 11/14/2021 3:46 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > clumsy interface to Usenet, making newsgroups appear as Google forums. > That being said, yes, anyone can post to unmoderated newsgroups. I am > *asking* you to refrain from arguing with olcott here in comp.lang.c++. Please just review my snippet code C code and I will go away again. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see. Arthur Schopenhauer |
| wij <wyniijj@gmail.com>: Nov 15 12:43AM -0800 On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 23:58:59 UTC+8, David Brown wrote: > Olcott is never going to listen to anyone else's advice or suggestions, > including the suggestion to take his ramblings elsewhere. But perhaps > you might. No one likes to see what is not wanted to see. But, 'suppressing' other speeches should not be what the 'free speech' we recognized. An example of your case: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming That communication function of that site is sabotaged by "garbage posts" is definitely not the essence of free speech. There are also many similar cases, particularly involving political issues. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Nov 15 10:12AM +0100 On 15/11/2021 09:43, wij wrote: > That communication function of that site is sabotaged by "garbage posts" is > definitely not the essence of free speech. > There are also many similar cases, particularly involving political issues. comp.programming is a Usenet group, not a "site" or a "google group". And yes, it has been destroyed by vandals - people who irritate others and hinder other people from using a place for its intended function. That is a misuse of free speech - just as talking loudly in a cinema or theatre is a misuse. It is extremely difficult to create and enforce a set of rules that do not hinder or censor free speech, while at the same time stopping misuse and abuse. The best that can be done in an open group like this is to ask people politely to respect other people. Sometimes it works - I've seen posters mature from annoying and egotistic to understanding that working /with/ people in a group, rather than against them, is better for everyone. Often, it does not work. Some people (such as at least one person in comp.programming) prefer to destroy communities and vandalise common areas - that is something that most people find difficult to understand, but it happens. Others (including a long-term poster to comp.programming and other groups, including occasionally this one) have serious psychological issues and I think are unable to understand things from other peoples' viewpoints. I suspect Olcott falls into this category - his plan to annoy people such as Keith until they review his "code" shows a serious inability to understand other people. Now, despite the rule that "discussions about topicality are always on topic", is it possible to agree on the following points? 1. Olcott's posts contribute nothing of use or interest to groups such as comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++, and are not topical there. 2. No replies to Olcott's posts in these groups help him in any way - most replies are complaints about the posts, and those that address the technical aspects are invariably dismissed by Olcott himself. 3. While ignoring Olcott will not stop him entirely, replying to him encourages most posts. Unfortunately, that also applies to replies in the topical group comp.theory, since he often cross-posts back to off-topic groups. 4. No one can stop Olcott or any others from posting what they want. All that can be done is ask people to stop, and appeal to basic human decency. 5. Further discussion here will not help. Either you get the point, or you don't. |
| wij <wyniijj@gmail.com>: Nov 15 03:58AM -0800 On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 17:12:36 UTC+8, David Brown wrote: > > definitely not the essence of free speech. > > There are also many similar cases, particularly involving political issues. > comp.programming is a Usenet group, not a "site" or a "google group". Sorry that I don't really distinguish "site" "google group/forum" "usenet" "newsgroup", sometimes I refer it to "link" "webpage",...,etc. > decency. > 5. Further discussion here will not help. Either you get the point, or > you don't. From Olcott's Incident I learned quite several things. From my eye, you just rejected a chance to lean new things for you. Those had debated with him should have learned something they missed in the process, nothing really that negative. It all depend on the viewer. |
| Nikki Locke <nikki@trumphurst.com>: Nov 14 11:23PM Available C++ Libraries FAQ URL: http://www.trumphurst.com/cpplibs/ This is a searchable list of libraries and utilities (both free and commercial) available to C++ programmers. If you know of a library which is not in the list, why not fill in the form at http://www.trumphurst.com/cpplibs/cppsub.php Maintainer: Nikki Locke - if you wish to contact me, please use the form on the website. |
| 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