A suggestion

[Keith Thompson]

Most of "Paul"'s postings here are followups.

If everyone stopped replying to him, he just might stop posting.

Or maybe he wouldn't, but that problem is easily solved by the use
of a killfile.

How likely is it that the *next* followup will be the one that
makes him change his mind, hmm?

 

[Dombo]

Op 09-Jan-11 11:07, Keith Thompson schreef:

Most of "Paul"'s postings here are followups.

If everyone stopped replying to him, he just might stop posting.

Or maybe he wouldn't, but that problem is easily solved by the use
of a killfile.

How likely is it that the *next* followup will be the one that
makes him change his mind, hmm?

Frankly I'm a bit surprised that otherwise intelligent people keep
arguing with him, while it is obvious from his first few postings that
will lead to nowhere.

 

[red floyd]

I'm sure they enjoyed it. It was a nice opportunity to demonstrate ones'
own invincible logic... and to re-demonstrate it - and again and again!

http://xkcd.com/386

 

[gwowen]

How likely is it that the *next* followup will be the one that
makes him change his mind, hmm?

Well said.

Here's what I try to do: whenever I see someone like Paul trolling on
the internet, I try and go out and use that energy I might otherwise
have spent arguing pointlessly, to do something nice for someone else,
preferably away from my computer -- donate to a worthy cause, make a
loved one a cup of tea, do the ironing... it doesn't matter. But it
might turn internet trolling into a net force for good in the
universe.

There, that's my hippy twaddle for the day.

 

[Joshua Maurice]

http://xkcd.com/386

Too true, too true.

 

[Öö Tiib]

I'm sure they enjoyed it. It was a nice opportunity to demonstrate ones'
own invincible logic... and to re-demonstrate it - and again and again!

Was fun to read at first how everybody were classified totally
incorrect, confused and stupid. Sadly the subject was too simple and
so it was getting repetitive and boring quick.

I think Paul hoped that some people are fool enough to support him. He
was much nicer to the responders who showed even minor understanding to
his ideas. Maybe he was hoping to tear the group into parties all
fighting each other.

Maybe. Usually they pick something more dim for such purpose.
Something about threads, exceptions, character encodings, signedness,
programming patterns, garbage collection or the like.

 

[Joshua Maurice]

Maybe. Usually they pick something more dim for such purpose.
Something about threads, exceptions, character encodings, signedness,
programming patterns, garbage collection or the like.

Dunno. I think I was Paul recently in a thread on comp.lang.c
recently, being unkind to apparently renowned experts in an argument
over the appropriate definition of "to define a type". Unlike Paul at
least, I could see the other side's case. (I simply disagreed.) Remind
me never to do that again.

 

[Stuart Redmann]

I'm sure they enjoyed it. It was a nice opportunity to demonstrate
ones' own invincible logic... and to re-demonstrate it - and
again and again!

Once I had a discussion with the famous Mr. Newcomer in
microsoft.public.vc.mfc where we came to the topic of OCD (obsessive-
compulsive disorder). I hold the believe that the percentage of
programmers that suffer from OCD is increased with regard to the mean
percentage. I think that programming requires a high degree of
strictness in order to get the computer to do what he wants him to do
(in contrast to a conversation with a human being, where one can be a
lot more imprecise).

When I see Paul's postings I get the feeling that he is quite
emotionally involved while at the same time he is open to arguments.
This looks very much like OCD to me (although I am by no means a
psychologist), and this would explain why he persists in arguing.

Regards,
Stuart

 

[Stuart Redmann]

Dunno. I think I was Paul recently in a thread on comp.lang.c
recently, being unkind to apparently renowned experts in an argument
over the appropriate definition of "to define a type". Unlike Paul at
least, I could see the other side's case. (I simply disagreed.) Remind
me never to do that again.

Gosh, we may even end up establishing a new proverb in this newsgroup:
Don't you Paul me!

Regards,
Stuart

 

[Paul]

Once I had a discussion with the famous Mr. Newcomer in
microsoft.public.vc.mfc where we came to the topic of OCD (obsessive-
compulsive disorder). I hold the believe that the percentage of
programmers that suffer from OCD is increased with regard to the mean
percentage. I think that programming requires a high degree of
strictness in order to get the computer to do what he wants him to do
(in contrast to a conversation with a human being, where one can be a
lot more imprecise).

When I see Paul's postings I get the feeling that he is quite
emotionally involved while at the same time he is open to arguments.
This looks very much like OCD to me (although I am by no means a
psychologist), and this would explain why he persists in arguing.

Regards,
Stuart

WRONG!

 

[Stuart Redmann]

WRONG!

Would you help us to understand the driving power behind your latest
postings? Do you want to get the C++ Standard corrected because you
think that it is misleading?

Regards,
Stuart

 

[Paul]

Would you help us to understand the driving power behind your latest
postings? Do you want to get the C++ Standard corrected because you
think that it is misleading?

What is the driving force behind this posting you have made?


As per the standards a big part of the problem *here* is the way in which
people attempt to quote the standards word for word often out of context
and/or misinterpreting.

The way we speak about programming is not in the same as the the C++
standards. And some reasonable level of intelligence must often be used when
reading the standards to understand what they mean in their context.
Put basically , the context of the standards is not the primary context
here, as some people often incorrectly state.

Often terms like
a) C++ has no knowledge of that
b) This is off topic here because the C++ standards do not cover it.
c) you are using a term in a different context form the C++ standards
therefore you are wrong.
d) the rules of this newsgroup are....
etc etc
are used, when that is simply rubbish. To suggest that is actually wrong and
its some kind of double negative.
I was one told that I was wrong for using ASCII in this forum, because the
C++ didn't cover it. What kind of narrow minded nonsense is that and what
will it ever achieve, except some persons ego to be boosted from correcting
another.

That kind of attitude displays a very limited imagination to me and it
frankly pretty dull and boring.

Anyway this *IS* a troll thread and I never started it so toodle pip.

 

[Stuart Redmann]

As per the standards a big part of the problem *here* is the way
in which people attempt to quote the standards word for word often
out of context and/or misinterpreting.

The way we speak about programming is not in the same as the
the C++ standards. And some reasonable level of intelligence must
often be used when reading the standards to understand what they
mean in their context.
Put basically , the context of the standards is not the primary context
here, as some people often incorrectly state.

The snippets of the standard that have been cited this far in various
postings make me shiver, it is quite apparently laywer-speak.
Personally, I use C++ for more than 10 years, and I only had to ask
once or twice whether something is according to the standard or not (I
don't even own a copy of it).

This does not mean that I think that the people who work on the
standard do useless work (maybe badly written, but not useless). I
think that these people who work at the standard will react quite
harsh when somebody posts here not using the vocabulary of the
standard. That is something that I can ignore quite well (having to
work with dozens of physicists every day makes one quite immune to
lacking social skills ;-)

Often terms like
a) C++ has no knowledge of that
b) This is off topic here because the C++ standards do not cover it.
c) you are using a term in a different context form the C++ standards
therefore you are wrong.
d) the rules of this newsgroup are....
etc etc
are used, when that is simply rubbish. To suggest that is actually wrong and
its some kind of double negative.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I think that this newsgroup should not
dedicate to standard-compliant coding only, but a lot of the "key
users" think otherwise. Since I have not been criticised for posting
platform dependent code yet, I think that I am tolerated.

I was one told that I was wrong for using ASCII in this forum, because the
C++ didn't cover it. What kind of narrow minded nonsense is that and what
will it ever achieve, except some persons ego to be boosted from correcting
another.

That kind of attitude displays a very limited imagination to me and it
frankly pretty dull and boring.

Maybe because *they* have a streak of OCD in them. Maybe the usenet
serves as a kind of substitute for a peer group for these people, so
they think that they will get credit for their contributions even if
the contribution is only a rebuke. Who knows.

Regards,
Stuart

 

[Stuart Redmann]

I just read some of the follow-ups in one of your recent threads
("Newbies don't learn C++ Optionen"), and I glimpsed something that
caught my attention. One of the points in the discussion was whether a
member function is "part of" an object or not (the "member functions"
thread), where "part of" could be interpreted quite differently
depending on the personal point of view of the reader.

A scenario where a member function will most probably be considered as
"part of" an object by everyone would be if it was possible to give
each object a separate "copy" of the same member function, so that
each object can modify it (self-modifying code).

This would mean that the compiler had to use some form of dispatch
mechanism for non-virtual member functions, too. I know that no C++
compiler provides such a mechanism, but the C++ standard doesn't
forbid it to do so.

Regards,
Stuart

 

[Michael Doubez]

I just read some of the follow-ups in one of your recent threads
("Newbies don't learn C++ Optionen"), and I glimpsed something that
caught my attention. One of the points in the discussion was whether a
member function is "part of" an object or not (the "member functions"
thread), where "part of" could be interpreted quite differently
depending on the personal point of view of the reader.

A scenario where a member function will most probably be considered as
"part of" an object by everyone would be if it was possible to give
each object a separate "copy" of the same member function, so that
each object can modify it (self-modifying code).

A copy of what ? In the c++ model, functions are not object and thus
cannot be contained within a object. You can store objects (ex:
function pointer or lambda) that achieves what you say but they are
member objects, not member functions.

This would mean that the compiler had to use some form of dispatch
mechanism for non-virtual member functions, too. I know that no C++
compiler provides such a mechanism, but the C++ standard doesn't
forbid it to do so.

AFAIS this would be some kind of dynamic/multiple instance linkage
which is not covered by the C++ standard. This is no longer C++.

 

[Paul]

A copy of what ? In the c++ model, functions are not object and thus
cannot be contained within a object. You can store objects (ex:
function pointer or lambda) that achieves what you say but they are
member objects, not member functions.

An object is the concept of a data structure which consists of member data
and member functions. This is as much a fact as the fact that the sky is
blue.
C++ was designed to be, or support, object orientated programing in the
context of my above definition. This is the main reason why member functions
exist and this is primarily what a member function is used for. Any use of a
member function, other than as an objects member function, is not its
primary intended use.
For this reason alone a member function is part of an object as much as the
sky is blue.

C++ did *not* set out to support the idea that an object was simply a region
of stroage and did not contain member functions. This is simply bollocks.

People can argue the sky is not blue and its only the refracted light that
enters our eyeballs that appears to be blue. But they are wrong, the sky
*IS* blue.
People can argue that a member function is not part of an object because the
opcode of the function is not actually stored inside the object. But they
are wrong because an object *does* contain functions.

The fact that a small group of people cannot understand the obvious and
misinterpet the standards by quoting out of context does not make them
correct.
Please do not be influenced by their idiotic and moronic way of thinking.

AFAIS this would be some kind of dynamic/multiple instance linkage
which is not covered by the C++ standard. This is no longer C++.

Because something is not covered by the C++ standards does not mean it is
not C++. To state this suggests you do not understand what a standard is, or
it's intended purpose.

 

[Ulrich Eckhardt]

An object is the concept of a data structure which consists of member
data and member functions. This is as much a fact as the fact that the
sky is blue.

The sky is black here. Oh, and you are ignoring an important part of the
statement you are trying to refute: "In the c++ model". Is it sooo hard to
understand the difference between this and general OOP lingo?

 

[Paul]

The sky is black here. Oh, and you are ignoring an important part of the
statement you are trying to refute: "In the c++ model". Is it sooo hard to
understand the difference between this and general OOP lingo?

You are ignoring the very reason a member function exists in C++. That is to
support the OOP concept of an object.
I am not ignoring or refuting anything as I clearly acknowledge the C++
standards but I also understand the difference in context in which the
standards are written.
Unofrtunately, for you, you don't understand anything I have said because of
your lower level of intelligence and lack of understanding.

 

[Ulrich Eckhardt]

You are ignoring the very reason a member function exists in C++. That
is to support the OOP concept of an object.

How is that relevant to a statement made in the context of _The C++ Object
Model_ which is different from the one used for OOP? Again, if you
restrict a statement to the C++ object model, in which (as you have been
told numerous times) the term "object" refers to something else than what
the "object" in OOP refers to, then your arguing in the general OOP
context is simply out of place. You know, there are reasons the C++ object
model defines an object as it does, because that has many subtle
consequences that only become apparent when looking at the whole standard.
To me though, it seems that you don't even know half of it, considering
the knowledge about e.g. member function pointers you showed elsethreads.

Pauly, what you are repeatedly doing is taking a statement made in one
context and proving it wrong in a different context. However, that proves
nothing! You just didn't reason coherently because by transplanting the
statement to a different context you also changed its meaning, so any
proof doesn't verify or falsify the original statement.

Also, that is the reason that people call you a troll, you are repeatedly
being told that but not only fail to apply that information but even
violently and insultingly argue against anyone that points out your
incoherent arguing. The question that comes up whether that is
intentional, which would would qualify you as a troll.

Uli

 

[Paul]

How is that relevant to a statement made in the context of _The C++ Object
Model_ which is different from the one used for OOP? Again, if you
restrict a statement to the C++ object model, in which (as you have been
told numerous times) the term "object" refers to something else than what
the "object" in OOP refers to, then your arguing in the general OOP
context is simply out of place.

How can the reason a member function exists in C++ not be relevant.
The C++ object model *is* restriced , not by me , by the fact the C++
standard does not go into implementation specifics. The tiny piece of the
document that describes the C++ object model is by no means a complete
description of how C++ objects work.
Additionally the C++ standard cannot and never will state that a member
function is not a member of an object.

You know, there are reasons the C++ object
model defines an object as it does, because that has many subtle
consequences that only become apparent when looking at the whole standard.
To me though, it seems that you don't even know half of it, considering
the knowledge about e.g. member function pointers you showed elsethreads.

The C++ is does not define an object in an opposite context from an OOP
object, the C++ is very carefull not to do this becuase it would directly
imply C++ did not support OOP.
I don't need to know what the rest of the standards say, and by the looks of
thing I don't want to if they cannot make a clear distintion between objects
of a UDT and objects at compiler level. I cannot believe that has still not
been sorted after all those years.

Pauly, what you are repeatedly doing is taking a statement made in one
context and proving it wrong in a different context. However, that proves
nothing! You just didn't reason coherently because by transplanting the
statement to a different context you also changed its meaning, so any
proof doesn't verify or falsify the original statement.

Im not changing any context. Im talking cleary about objects in the sense of
OOP.

Also, that is the reason that people call you a troll, you are repeatedly
being told that but not only fail to apply that information but even
violently and insultingly argue against anyone that points out your
incoherent arguing. The question that comes up whether that is
intentional, which would would qualify you as a troll.

This is the problem this attitude that I 'am being told' and I don't listen.
You don''t seem to understand that I am telling you something, its you that
is wrong here not me.

A member function is called so because it is a member of a object.
What else is would it be a member of? Do you want to suggest its a member of
a class again, please do so I can once again prove that a C++ class doesn't
even exist at runtime.

The very fact that you call me a troll is in itself an insult , I have not
insulted you and to suggest I have been violent towards you is just
laughable.
When I have a large group of morons all ganging up on me and not only
insulting me , but my recently dead mom, and continuing to insult her after
I said.
I am quite within my right to give some back. So don't give me that one
sided nonsense.
And also you seem to forget the original argument that started with numerous
insults towards me.

If you think you can insult me in a way that is acceptable to this group
then you're wrong. AN insult is an inult whether it a nasty fuckin swearword
is used or not. Grow Up!