Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C++ > technical correctness

Reply
Thread Tools

technical correctness

 
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2010
I had an argument with some guy called Francis Glasssboro.
He tried to wangle the term input to mean some bullshit it doesn't mean.
He tried to misquote text from the standards to mean something it wasn't
supposed to mean .


What is the point of these forums if we have no respect for technical
correctness?
When he is wrong but will not, and cannot, admit he is wrong, he can be
nothing more than a wanking idiot.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Michael Doubez
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2010
On 31 déc, 11:08, "Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I had an argument with some guy called Francis Glasssboro.


You must mean Francis Glassborow.

> He tried to wangle the term input to mean some bullshit it doesn't mean.
> He tried to misquote text from the standards to mean something it wasn't
> supposed to mean .


So you seem to think.

>
> What is the point of these forums if we have no respect for technical
> correctness?


Bickering ... ehhh ... Discussion

> When he is wrong but will not, and cannot, admit he is wrong, he can be
> nothing more than a wanking idiot.


If you think he cannot, then what's the point ? Working with others'
limitations is part of social life.

Concerning Francis Glassborow, I know him only from his work at the
ACCU but what I have seen of him doesn't fit with what you describes.
He is also a former teacher and has written a book about C++ for
beginner (with good reviews) which speaks for him.

Maybe you could reconsider the presence of a blind spot in your
reasonning.

--
Michael
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nick Keighley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2010
On Dec 31, 10:08*am, "Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I had an argument with some guy called Francis Glasssboro.
> He tried to wangle the term input to mean some <nonsense> it doesn't mean..
> He tried to misquote text from the standards to mean something it wasn't
> supposed to mean .
>
> What is the point of these forums if we have no respect for technical
> correctness?
> When he is wrong but will not, and cannot, admit he is wrong, he can be
> nothing more than a <expletive> idiot.


where was this discussion? I couldn't find it with google. Francis is
usually pretty sensible. Perhaps we should be able to judge for
ourselves the quality of the post you refer to.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ulrich Eckhardt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2010
Paul wrote:
> I had an argument with some guy [...] He tried to wangle the term input
> to mean some bullshit it doesn't mean. He tried to misquote text from
> the standards to mean something it wasn't supposed to mean .


All this happens. The Usenet is a place where people find a forum for
discussion. Different interpretations of things like the C++ standard are
a common topic which people bring up to get a better (and peer-reviewed)
understanding of it.

> When he is wrong but will not, and cannot, admit he is wrong, he can
> be nothing more than a wanking idiot.


You don't have anything like a right that guarantees you that if someone
else is wrong they have to admit it. Best you get over it, because the
anger doesn't become you; Your posting rather makes you look like a fool
ATM.

Sorry.

Uli

 
Reply With Quote
 
Balog Pal
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2010
"Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>I had an argument with some guy called Francis Glasssboro.
> He tried to wangle the term input to mean some bullshit it doesn't mean.
> He tried to misquote text from the standards to mean something it wasn't
> supposed to mean .


Aww, sure, is this still the issue passing 3 months?here:
http://www.phwinfo.com/forum/comp-la...input-cin.html

(note: news.virginmedia.com == paul as in OP)
<quote>
09/18/10, 10:55 #18
news.virginmedia.com


Re: input to cin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Francis Glassborow" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 18/09/2010 00:21, news.virginmedia.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Francesco S. Carta" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:4c93dd94$0$6830$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> news.virginmedia.com <(E-Mail Removed)>, on 17/09/2010 20:34:24,
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Francesco S. Carta" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:4c93b0d7$0$30906$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> news.virginmedia.com <(E-Mail Removed)>, on 17/09/2010 17:41:23,
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't seem to have a point other than to create an argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> All right, so let's check if we really have an argument and let's do
>>>>> it step by step.
>>>>>
>>>>> I kindly ask you to reply to the following question with a "yes" or a
>>>>> "no". You might eventually add any comment, as you wish (of course)
>>>>> and I'll eagerly reply to any question of yours in the same manner.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem a very intelligent person to me, I hope you'll agree that
>>>>> this is a good way to clarify any misunderstanding.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you object to the fact of considering the "std::cin >> object"
>>>>> operation as an "input operation"?
>>>>>
>>>> I see who have snipped almost everything from the previous post.
>>>> From this can we take it that you accept all the previous as correct or
>>>> are you simply avoiding these issues?
>>>
>>> None of the two options. We will return to every and each step at due
>>> time, if you'll consider it necessary.
>>>
>>> I'm just trying to clarify your last objection, that is, the fact that
>>> I could be creating an argument where there might be none in reality.
>>>
>>> You might think that I'm kidding or something, but I'm serious.
>>>
>>> I'm seriously thinking that I could have been creating something out
>>> of the void, and I'm seeking your in order to clarify it.
>>>
>>> So, according to your view of the word "input", would you call "input"
>>> the action of transferring some data from std::cin to an object?
>>>
>>> --

>> I don't see how I can be any more clear about my view of input.
>> I will state my view once again if it makes it any clearer:
>>
>> With regards to the input streams which is the current context we're
>> referring to, we have:
>> source data -> stream -> object.
>> In this scenario I regard the input as the step data-> stream.
>>
>> The question you put forward is... would I call the next step of this
>> process input re:
>> stream -> object
>> This could be regarded as input to the object but if you call this input
>> is becomes confused with the main input process. It's much less
>> confusing to simply call this extraction or use some other word or
>> phrase.

>
> So that is a very long way of writing 'No' ? Correct me if I am mistaken.


>
> However note that the C++ Standard (which in context is what we are
> talking about) talks about input functions.


Is this is forum about the C++ standards? No.
So now YOU want to change the context to that of the standards?

You are also missing the big picture, that is you fail to acknowledge the
stream object.
As the >> operator is a member of the stream object I think It is
unreasonable to ignore it.

>A function is evaluated and in the case of operator >> the result is a
>pointer value which can, when necessary, be converted to a bool. I think it
>is not unreasonable to think that an input function does input, though in
>this case the input seems to be to a variable.

You , like Francesco, seem to be focusing ONLY on the extraction. You seem
to be trying to say that the main input process is extraction from the
stream to an object.

Ok lets say we are creating an input processing function, what is one of the
first things this function must to do?
Check for successful input.
Yes this function can be called an input function , or an input processing
function, but context of input here is input to the function because the
focus is the function.
If the focus is the stream the input is input to stream.

> I think the Standard is written that way because the 'input functions' are
> not required to get external input, it may be provided from within the
> program. Yes it might have been better to have called them extraction
> functions and if you feel strongly you can go to comp.std.C++ and raise a
> defect report. That is where such word games belong.
>
>

When people write standards their context is different as they are defining
a language, let me explain:

Suppose we a given a project to create a C++ stream library that reads and
write to a USB device.
But the C++ standards don't define USB devices, therefore its not a valid
C++ program? Of course this is wrong, it's is because the C++ standards are
in a different context.

You seem to be misinterpreting the purpose of the C++ standards as a
definition of the contextual interpretation of software engineering terms.
The C++ Standards is simply a guide that defines the expected behavior of
the language, it certainly doesn't define software engineering terms.


</quote>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2010

"Nick Keighley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
On Dec 31, 10:08 am, "Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I had an argument with some guy called Francis Glasssboro.
> He tried to wangle the term input to mean some <nonsense> it doesn't mean.
> He tried to misquote text from the standards to mean something it wasn't
> supposed to mean .
>
> What is the point of these forums if we have no respect for technical
> correctness?
> When he is wrong but will not, and cannot, admit he is wrong, he can be
> nothing more than a <expletive> idiot.


where was this discussion? I couldn't find it with google. Francis is
usually pretty sensible. Perhaps we should be able to judge for
ourselves the quality of the post you refer to.

Most of the argument was done by his freind Francesco ref:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...ea+about+input

Francis fully supported Francesco in his arguments with numerous postings
such as this one:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...0e0c43be410f2e


 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2010

"Ulrich Eckhardt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de...
> Paul wrote:
>> I had an argument with some guy [...] He tried to wangle the term input
>> to mean some bullshit it doesn't mean. He tried to misquote text from
>> the standards to mean something it wasn't supposed to mean .

>
> All this happens. The Usenet is a place where people find a forum for
> discussion. Different interpretations of things like the C++ standard are
> a common topic which people bring up to get a better (and peer-reviewed)
> understanding of it.
>
>> When he is wrong but will not, and cannot, admit he is wrong, he can
>> be nothing more than a wanking idiot.

>
> You don't have anything like a right that guarantees you that if someone
> else is wrong they have to admit it. Best you get over it, because the
> anger doesn't become you; Your posting rather makes you look like a fool
> ATM.
>
> Sorry.
>
> Uli
>
>

Hmm anger........^_^
Where did that come from?
No need to apologise for your post, really its ok. But I'm gonna ask you a
little question, feel free to answer if you like .........

How many standards apply to C++?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2011

"Balog Pal" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ifl53a$248f$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>I had an argument with some guy called Francis Glasssboro.
>> He tried to wangle the term input to mean some bullshit it doesn't mean.
>> He tried to misquote text from the standards to mean something it wasn't
>> supposed to mean .

>
> Aww, sure, is this still the issue passing 3 months?here:
> http://www.phwinfo.com/forum/comp-la...input-cin.html
>
> (note: news.virginmedia.com == paul as in OP)
> <quote>
> 09/18/10, 10:55 #18
> news.virginmedia.com
>
>
> Re: input to cin
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> "Francis Glassborow" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On 18/09/2010 00:21, news.virginmedia.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Francesco S. Carta" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:4c93dd94$0$6830$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> news.virginmedia.com <(E-Mail Removed)>, on 17/09/2010 20:34:24,
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Francesco S. Carta" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4c93b0d7$0$30906$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> news.virginmedia.com <(E-Mail Removed)>, on 17/09/2010 17:41:23,
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't seem to have a point other than to create an argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All right, so let's check if we really have an argument and let's do
>>>>>> it step by step.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I kindly ask you to reply to the following question with a "yes" or a
>>>>>> "no". You might eventually add any comment, as you wish (of course)
>>>>>> and I'll eagerly reply to any question of yours in the same manner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem a very intelligent person to me, I hope you'll agree that
>>>>>> this is a good way to clarify any misunderstanding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you object to the fact of considering the "std::cin >> object"
>>>>>> operation as an "input operation"?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I see who have snipped almost everything from the previous post.
>>>>> From this can we take it that you accept all the previous as correct
>>>>> or
>>>>> are you simply avoiding these issues?
>>>>
>>>> None of the two options. We will return to every and each step at due
>>>> time, if you'll consider it necessary.
>>>>
>>>> I'm just trying to clarify your last objection, that is, the fact that
>>>> I could be creating an argument where there might be none in reality.
>>>>
>>>> You might think that I'm kidding or something, but I'm serious.
>>>>
>>>> I'm seriously thinking that I could have been creating something out
>>>> of the void, and I'm seeking your in order to clarify it.
>>>>
>>>> So, according to your view of the word "input", would you call "input"
>>>> the action of transferring some data from std::cin to an object?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> I don't see how I can be any more clear about my view of input.
>>> I will state my view once again if it makes it any clearer:
>>>
>>> With regards to the input streams which is the current context we're
>>> referring to, we have:
>>> source data -> stream -> object.
>>> In this scenario I regard the input as the step data-> stream.
>>>
>>> The question you put forward is... would I call the next step of this
>>> process input re:
>>> stream -> object
>>> This could be regarded as input to the object but if you call this input
>>> is becomes confused with the main input process. It's much less
>>> confusing to simply call this extraction or use some other word or
>>> phrase.

>>
>> So that is a very long way of writing 'No' ? Correct me if I am mistaken.

>
>>
>> However note that the C++ Standard (which in context is what we are
>> talking about) talks about input functions.

>
> Is this is forum about the C++ standards? No.
> So now YOU want to change the context to that of the standards?
>
> You are also missing the big picture, that is you fail to acknowledge the
> stream object.
> As the >> operator is a member of the stream object I think It is
> unreasonable to ignore it.
>
>>A function is evaluated and in the case of operator >> the result is a
>>pointer value which can, when necessary, be converted to a bool. I think
>>it
>>is not unreasonable to think that an input function does input, though in
>>this case the input seems to be to a variable.

> You , like Francesco, seem to be focusing ONLY on the extraction. You seem
> to be trying to say that the main input process is extraction from the
> stream to an object.
>
> Ok lets say we are creating an input processing function, what is one of
> the
> first things this function must to do?
> Check for successful input.
> Yes this function can be called an input function , or an input processing
> function, but context of input here is input to the function because the
> focus is the function.
> If the focus is the stream the input is input to stream.
>
>> I think the Standard is written that way because the 'input functions'
>> are
>> not required to get external input, it may be provided from within the
>> program. Yes it might have been better to have called them extraction
>> functions and if you feel strongly you can go to comp.std.C++ and raise a
>> defect report. That is where such word games belong.
>>
>>

> When people write standards their context is different as they are
> defining
> a language, let me explain:
>
> Suppose we a given a project to create a C++ stream library that reads and
> write to a USB device.
> But the C++ standards don't define USB devices, therefore its not a valid
> C++ program? Of course this is wrong, it's is because the C++ standards
> are
> in a different context.
>
> You seem to be misinterpreting the purpose of the C++ standards as a
> definition of the contextual interpretation of software engineering terms.
> The C++ Standards is simply a guide that defines the expected behavior of
> the language, it certainly doesn't define software engineering terms.
>
>
> </quote>
>
>


Yep apparently they're misinterpreting the standards.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2011

"Michael Doubez" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
On 31 déc, 11:08, "Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I had an argument with some guy called Francis Glasssboro.


You must mean Francis Glassborow.

> He tried to wangle the term input to mean some bullshit it doesn't mean.
> He tried to misquote text from the standards to mean something it wasn't
> supposed to mean .


So you seem to think.

>
> What is the point of these forums if we have no respect for technical
> correctness?


Bickering ... ehhh ... Discussion

> When he is wrong but will not, and cannot, admit he is wrong, he can be
> nothing more than a wanking idiot.


If you think he cannot, then what's the point ? Working with others'
limitations is part of social life.

Concerning Francis Glassborow, I know him only from his work at the
ACCU but what I have seen of him doesn't fit with what you describes.
He is also a former teacher and has written a book about C++ for
beginner (with good reviews) which speaks for him.

Maybe you could reconsider the presence of a blind spot in your
reasonning.

--
Michael

I see it's some kinda celebrity status here, programming skills not
required. I heard Victoria Beckham starteed programming she's very high up
in the programming community especially since she joined ACCU.

The only blind spot I acknowledge is the blindness to technical correctness.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Geoff
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2011
Two Buddhist monks were walking in the forest on a pilgrimage. On the
path at the edge of a stream they beheld a beautiful woman who was
afraid to cross the stream for fear of getting her beautiful clothes
wet from the water.

The eldest monk without a word simply picked her up and carried her
over the stream to the other side. The youngest one was shocked and
scandalized by such behavior from the elder monk but didn't say
anything about it.

After many days of walking and as they were about to reach the temple
the younger monk asked the elder about the incident, saying, "Do you
not think it was wrong to touch the beautiful woman and carry her
across the stream?"

The old man said, "I put her down at the side of the stream and never
gave her another thought. Have you been carrying her in your mind all
this time?"
 
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
technical correctness 2 PaulR C++ 19 01-07-2011 09:41 PM
stl list, const correctness Jim Strathmeyer C++ 2 03-20-2005 12:37 AM
A technical question from a non-technical person. Any suggestions appreciated. Graham Cross VOIP 2 01-27-2005 09:13 PM
convert the content of a string to an expression to check its correctness spiros C++ 7 07-20-2004 09:41 PM
Correctness of code for box with header Ryan Stewart HTML 9 03-07-2004 07:53 PM



Advertisments