Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C++ > Re: Troll meets Monolith

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Troll meets Monolith

 
 
Juha Nieminen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2011
Leigh Johnston <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 15/02/2011 18:40, Leigh Johnston wrote:
>> "Oh my God -- it's full of std::size_t" (Surprised Troll)

>
> A certain troll who replied to this thread seems to be unaware that
> appealing to authority is a logical fallacy.


You don't seem to understand the point. The point is that your opinion
is not the only valid one, nor necessarily even a correct one. People out
there, people who know about the language and programming quite a lot,
have a differing opinion than yours, which is rather telling. You are
acting like your opinion is the correct one as a matter of course.

It's one thing to have an opinion. We are all entitled to them.
A different thing is furiously defending your opinion in a manner that
makes it sound like you think that your opinion is better and more
correct than everybody else's. That's a problem in attitude.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
gwowen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2011
On Feb 16, 3:48*pm, Juha Nieminen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> *You don't seem to understand the point. The point is that your opinion
> is not the only valid one, nor necessarily even a correct one. People out
> there, people who know about the language and programming quite a lot,
> have a differing opinion than yours, which is rather telling. You are
> acting like your opinion is the correct one as a matter of course.
>
> It's one thing to have an opinion. We are all entitled to them.
> A different thing is furiously defending your opinion in a manner that
> makes it sound like you think that your opinion is better and more
> correct than everybody else's. That's a problem in attitude.


I wish I were sufficiently tolerant, good natured, pleasant and
articulate to make my point as well as Juha made my point.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Juha Nieminen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2011
Leigh Johnston <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> A certain troll who replied to this thread seems to be unaware that
>>> appealing to authority is a logical fallacy.

>
> My opinion concurs with both the C++ Standard and the draft C++0x
> Standard which is as far as this forum is concerned are authoritative
> sources which trump other less authoritative sources (such as "The C++
> Programming Language" by Stroustrup).


Who was it that said that appealing to authority is a logical fallacy?
Oh, right...
 
Reply With Quote
 
gwowen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2011
Juha Nieminen wrote:
> Who was it that said that appealing to authority is a logical fallacy?
> Oh, right...


On matters of the language, appealing to the standard is fine. The
text therein is the last word on the language.

However, one is not allowed to insert words to fit ones needs:

So, if the language standard says:
"Types bool, char, wchar_t, and the signed and unsigned integer types
are collectively called integral
types" ... "One of the expressions shall have the type “pointer to T”
and the other shall have enumeration or integral type."

The only reasonable, rational interpretation of this is "One of the
expressions shall have the type “pointer to T” and the other shall
have enumeration or type bool, char, wchar_t or a signed or unsigned
integer type."

it does not make sense to repeatedly pretend that this means:

"One of the expressions shall have the type “pointer to T” and the
other shall have unsigned enumeration or unsigned integral type."

Let alone to claim that it "explicitly states" that. That is just
idiocy.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Juha Nieminen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2011
Leigh Johnston <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Appealing to the authority which is the C++ Standard is an exception as
> the C++ Standard defines the language which is the topic of discussion
> in this forum; this doesn't mean that the C++ Standard is infallible
> however.


The C++ standard is the ultimate authority on how compilers should be
implemented and what they should support. In other words, the standard
defines the programming language.

However, in this case we are talking about program design and good
programming practices. The standard is a technical documentation that
defines the language, not a style guide.

In some situations the standardization committee had to make a choice of
style. The type of index variables of the standard containers is one
example. They decided on an unsigned type. Many people, including people
closely related to the development of the language, have a differing
opinion. The issue is, thus, that the standard cannot possibly appease
everybody, and they had to choose one side over the other. That doesn't
mean that the side they chose is inherently superior and "more correct"
than the other.

One could make the argument that "mistakes made when defining the
standard libraries don't mean that you should make the same mistakes as
well". (I'm not saying that using unsigned types was a mistake. I'm just
saying that just because the standardization committee decided to use
unsigned types doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best possible
solution.)
 
Reply With Quote
 
gwowen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2011
Leigh Johnston wrote:
> "if E1 is an array and E2 an integer, then E1[E2] refers to the E2-th member of E1.".


Note the type here give by "E2 an integer". You can continue to
pretend it says "unsigned integral type" if you like, but the standard
"integer".

As an experienced Fortran programmer, and a mathematician, I don't
have a problem with an element of a set, an array, being indexed by a
negative number. Your experience may be narrower, but isn't a bit
much to ask everyone else to conform to your limited world view.

Also, your killfile is still broken.

/ ObMathematician
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I
tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice
objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
 
Reply With Quote
 
gwowen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2011
Leigh Johnston wrote:
> I claimed that the C++ Standard seems to
> indicate that using negative array indices when subscripting an *array*
> is invalid as to do so would contradict "if E1 is an array and E2 an
> integer, then E1[E2] refers to the E2-th member of E1.".


That's odd, because I seem to remember you claiming that anyone you
used "int" to declare a variable to be used as was a "lazy <expletive
deleted>" who "should stick to Java".

Or, as a troll of my accquantaince once predicted:
> In your case, you keep trying to change the original statement to something more defensible

 
Reply With Quote
 
gwowen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2011
On Feb 17, 1:14*pm, Leigh Johnston <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> A troll just claimed that I asserted that the only valid subscript type
> when subscripting a *pointer* is an unsigned integral type; this is
> false as I never claimed that. *I claimed that the C++ Standard seems to
> indicate that using negative array indices when subscripting an *array*
> is invalid as to do so would contradict "if E1 is an array and E2 an
> integer, then E1[E2] refers to the E2-th member of E1.".


So when you called people who indexed arrays with "int" "lazy
f**kers", what you were doing was actually a technical argument
concerning intepretation of a clause in the C++ standard, and the
nature of ordinal numbers?

Is that really what you're claiming?

And you, who throws obscenities around like a spoiled 14-year old --
who calls names to anyone with the temerity to disagree with you --
have the effrontery to accuse other people of "spoiling this forum"?

As the legal maxim goes "If the law is against you, bang on the facts.
If the facts are against you, bang on the law. If both are against
you, bang on the table." You have now reached the point where even
your position is indefensible, and are trying to create new threads
containing meta-debate to weasel out of the actual debate.

Truly pitiful.

Unlike yours, my killfile works. It's very very hard to get in it,
but you have now succeeded.
 
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
Tagan Monolith Ian Front Page News 0 08-01-2008 09:07 AM
Find the first element that meets the condition jm.suresh@no.spam.gmail.com Python 3 02-25-2007 05:44 PM
myspace meets tucows and planetsourcecode? Mad Scientist Jr Java 3 10-13-2006 05:02 PM
MOO meets Python Aahz Python 6 04-06-2006 02:42 AM
SimpleXMLServer meets inetd Marek Kubica Python 0 03-12-2005 07:06 PM



Advertisments