Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > New release of the C Containers Library (CCL)

Reply
Thread Tools

New release of the C Containers Library (CCL)

 
 
Jon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2010
MartinBroadhurst wrote:
> On Nov 8, 7:43 pm, "Jon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> So you both don't know what a POD is either huh. The web is your
>> friend. Look them both up unless you wanna keep misunderstanding the
>> concepts and potentially cause others to "learn" the incorrect
>> things.- Hide quoted text
>>
>>

>
> I do know what a POD type is, and I know what a concrete class is as
> well. Your definition contains elements of both, but is neither.
>


Keep thinking that if you want to, but you are wrong.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Seebs
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2010
On 2010-11-08, MartinBroadhurst <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 7:43?pm, "Jon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> (technobabble worthy of the original Star Trek series)


> Your definition contains elements of both, but is neither.


Nietzsche said "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster,
and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

I think that, on consideration, you will find this quote directly
applicable to your current circumstance with respect to "Jon".

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
MartinBroadhurst
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2010
On Nov 8, 7:43*pm, "Jon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Just because you found other incorrect usages of the term doesn't
> >>>>> make it correct. A "concrete" class in C++ is one who's object
> >>>>> instances behave like built-in types. Such a class must include
> >>>>> the following special member functions: a default constructor, a
> >>>>> copy constructor, a copy-assignment operator, a destructor.

>


Which built-in types? Integers?

class C
{
/* No need to define a default constructor; one is implicitly
defined */
/* No need to define a copy constructor; one is implicitly defined
*/
/* No need to define a copy-assignment operator; one is implicitly
defined */
/* No need to define a destructor; one is implicitly defined */
};

C c1;
C c2;
c1 += c2; /* Damn! */

Martin
 
Reply With Quote
 
MartinBroadhurst
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2010
On Nov 8, 8:25*pm, Seebs <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 2010-11-08, MartinBroadhurst <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 8, 7:43?pm, "Jon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> (technobabble worthy of the original Star Trek series)

> > Your definition contains elements of both, but is neither.

>
> Nietzsche said "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster,
> and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
>
> I think that, on consideration, you will find this quote directly
> applicable to your current circumstance with respect to "Jon".
>


Nietzche also said, "What, then are the ultimate truths of mankind?
They are the *irrefutable errors*".

Jon is aiming for irrefutable error, and his technique is coming along
quite well, but he isn't quite there yet.

Martin
 
Reply With Quote
 
MartinBroadhurst
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2010
On Nov 8, 7:43*pm, "Jon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Just because you found other incorrect usages of the term doesn't
> >>>>> make it correct. A "concrete" class in C++ is one who's object
> >>>>> instances behave like built-in types. Such a class must include
> >>>>> the following special member functions: a default constructor, a
> >>>>> copy constructor, a copy-assignment operator, a destructor.

>


Jon, you're so wrong that people who are merely massively in error
look to you for consolation.
You're so wrong that the people of the planet Wrong have rung to say
that they don't know you.
You're so wrong that somewhere in Paris, there is an aluminium
simulacrum of you; it is the SI unit of being wrong.

Martin
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2010
MartinBroadhurst wrote:
> On Nov 8, 7:43 pm, "Jon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Just because you found other incorrect usages of the term
>>>>>>> doesn't make it correct. A "concrete" class in C++ is one who's
>>>>>>> object instances behave like built-in types. Such a class must
>>>>>>> include the following special member functions: a default
>>>>>>> constructor, a copy constructor, a copy-assignment operator, a
>>>>>>> destructor.

>>

>
> Which built-in types? Integers?
>
> class C
> {
> /* No need to define a default constructor; one is implicitly
> defined */
> /* No need to define a copy constructor; one is implicitly defined
> */
> /* No need to define a copy-assignment operator; one is implicitly
> defined */
> /* No need to define a destructor; one is implicitly defined */
> };
>
> C c1;
> C c2;
> c1 += c2; /* Damn! */
>


I've said all that needs to be said with "my" "definition" above. Use it
or don't. "No skin off of my nose". *I* didn't make the definition, the
language creators did. Take it up with them.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2010
MartinBroadhurst wrote:
> On Nov 8, 7:43 pm, "Jon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Just because you found other incorrect usages of the term
>>>>>>> doesn't make it correct. A "concrete" class in C++ is one who's
>>>>>>> object instances behave like built-in types. Such a class must
>>>>>>> include the following special member functions: a default
>>>>>>> constructor, a copy constructor, a copy-assignment operator, a
>>>>>>> destructor.

>>

>
> Which built-in types? Integers?
>
> class C
> {
> /* No need to define a default constructor; one is implicitly
> defined */
> /* No need to define a copy constructor; one is implicitly defined
> */
> /* No need to define a copy-assignment operator; one is implicitly
> defined */
> /* No need to define a destructor; one is implicitly defined */
> };
>
> C c1;
> C c2;
> c1 += c2; /* Damn! */
>


I've said all that needs to be said with "my" "definition" above. Use it
or don't. "No skin off of my nose". *I* didn't make the definition, the
language creators did. Take it up with them.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2010
MartinBroadhurst wrote:
> On Nov 8, 7:43 pm, "Jon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Just because you found other incorrect usages of the term
>>>>>>> doesn't make it correct. A "concrete" class in C++ is one who's
>>>>>>> object instances behave like built-in types. Such a class must
>>>>>>> include the following special member functions: a default
>>>>>>> constructor, a copy constructor, a copy-assignment operator, a
>>>>>>> destructor.

>>

>
> Jon, you're so wrong that people who are merely massively in error
> look to you for consolation.
> You're so wrong that the people of the planet Wrong have rung to say
> that they don't know you.
> You're so wrong that somewhere in Paris, there is an aluminium
> simulacrum of you; it is the SI unit of being wrong.
>


Okie dokie.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Seebs
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2010
On 2010-11-08, MartinBroadhurst <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Jon, you're so wrong that people who are merely massively in error
> look to you for consolation.
> You're so wrong that the people of the planet Wrong have rung to say
> that they don't know you.
> You're so wrong that somewhere in Paris, there is an aluminium
> simulacrum of you; it is the SI unit of being wrong.


The term is "fractally wrong":

http://www.alphadictionary.com/blog/?p=200

"The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of
resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong
person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you
zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that
part is just as wrong as the whole worldview."

We get a fair number of examples of them around here.

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / (E-Mail Removed)
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2010
MartinBroadhurst <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> On Nov 8, 7:43*pm, "Jon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Just because you found other incorrect usages of the term doesn't
>> >>>>> make it correct. A "concrete" class in C++ is one who's object
>> >>>>> instances behave like built-in types. Such a class must include
>> >>>>> the following special member functions: a default constructor, a
>> >>>>> copy constructor, a copy-assignment operator, a destructor.

>>

>
> Jon, you're so wrong that people who are merely massively in error
> look to you for consolation.
> You're so wrong that the people of the planet Wrong have rung to say
> that they don't know you.
> You're so wrong that somewhere in Paris, there is an aluminium
> simulacrum of you; it is the SI unit of being wrong.


Martin, please take this out of comp.lang.c. (I suspect the readers
of comp.lang.c++ aren't interested either, but I won't presume to
speak for them.)

You are feeding a troll, and thereby acting like one yourself.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) (E-Mail Removed) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are sequence containers not a subset of general containers? Sebastian Mach C++ 5 10-06-2012 07:54 PM
Re: New release of the C Containers Library (CCL) Jon C++ 16 11-09-2010 09:38 AM
Containers of iterators vs. containers of references clark.coleman@att.net C++ 7 01-25-2008 01:37 PM
Library exposing STL containers Bob C++ 2 07-26-2006 02:04 AM
Questions about destructors on std library containers Ross Boylan C++ 12 02-13-2004 03:03 AM



Advertisments