Another Stupid Newbie Question

[Ed Dana]

The apology I was suggesting wasn't for not posting the code, although
that would have been nice. It was for needlessly insulting the people
who helped you.

Had you wanted to insult me personally, you should have done so,
without doing so to everyone else including those that have done quite
a bit of work on your behalf.

As I said, you should be ashamed. You don't seem to be.

Did it ever occur to you that I'm a programmer too? With 20+ years of
experience in languages other than C++? If I insulted them, I insulted
myself.

The only thing I'm ashamed of is people who don't give newbies the
benefit of being newbies.

Ed.

 

[Ed Dana]

Don't worry, plenty of us aren't. In fact I wouldn't mind if there
were a compiler warning for forgetting to include Class:: on the
definition of member functions; I do it all the time and then
puzzle over why the wrong function overload is being called, etc.

A very gracious answer, Old Wolf. Thank you.

And, yes, it would be nice if C++ were a little more user friendly.

Programming has been described as "threading 500 shoe-laces in the
dark." If I were to apply that thought to C++, I'd have to say that it
included "while being drunk on a merry-go-round."

Ed.

 

[Default User]

Default User wrote:

Did it ever occur to you that I'm a programmer too? With 20+ years of
experience in languages other than C++? If I insulted them, I
insulted myself.

What does that matter?



Brian

 

[Ed Dana]

Ed Dana wrote:




What does that matter?

Maybe it doesn't matter? Maybe this whole silly argument doesn't matter?

I, however, get annoyed when someone tells me to post source code when,
in my mind, it wasn't appropriate to post that source code yet. I sought
one answer in my mind, and when it didn't check with my own personal
facts, only then did I see the need to go any further.

Perhaps you should have waited a little longer to see where the thread
went before declaring that "these sorts of guessing games are irritating
and pointless?"

I'll make you a truce: I'll apologize for calling programmers "uptight"
if you promise not to jump on the newbies so quickly?

Deal?

Ed.

 

[Rolf Magnus]

I understand that. And in previous posts have even done so. But this
post started as a simple question and evolved from there.

Yes, but only because you didn't show the code in the first place. Your
original question was unanswerable because the code was missing. So it
first had to "evolve" to get you an answer.

 

[Rolf Magnus]

In fact I wouldn't mind if there were a compiler warning for forgetting to
include Class:: on the definition of member functions;

How would it do that? I mean, after all, if you don't include the Class::,
you get a valid definition of a non-member function.

 

[Victor Bazarov]

How would it do that? I mean, after all, if you don't include the
Class::, you get a valid definition of a non-member function.

It seems that some programmers need the whole PC-lint built into
their compilers so that it would warn them about anything that can
be a potential mistake, even when coding style is concerned. Hand-
holding is good for 2-year-olds. That's why they usually move so
slowly. Training wheels are a hinderance on a race track. Some
realise that, and learn to run without them, accepting the risk of
falling sometimes. Some, after falling too many times, move back
to a tricycle (or forced onto one by their superiors). Such is
life. Once bitten... You can't really expect them to change their
mind, can you?

V

 

[Default User]

Default User wrote:

Maybe it doesn't matter? Maybe this whole silly argument doesn't
matter?

I, however, get annoyed when someone tells me to post source code
when, in my mind, it wasn't appropriate to post that source code yet.
I sought one answer in my mind, and when it didn't check with my own
personal facts, only then did I see the need to go any further.

Perhaps you should have waited a little longer to see where the
thread went before declaring that "these sorts of guessing games are
irritating and pointless?"

Well, as you were wrong about what you needed to post, it did become a
pointless and irritating guessing game. And no, I didn't see much
reason to wait around and see what developed.

I'll make you a truce: I'll apologize for calling programmers
"uptight" if you promise not to jump on the newbies so quickly?

Deal?

I will carefully evaluate each situation on its own merits.




Brian

 

[Ed Dana]

Well, as you were wrong about what you needed to post, it did become a
pointless and irritating guessing game.

Post #1, Me: How do I use the this pointer?
Post #2, Ambar: It's used this way.
Post #3, Me: Should I have defined my headers differently?
Post #4, You: "These silly guessing games are irritating and pointless."

Two straight-forward questions. Hardly a "guessing game." If this had
gone on for 10 or 20 posts you might have had a point...

I will carefully evaluate each situation on its own merits.

Which is exactly what I did before and when I finally decided it was
appropriate to post the source code.

Ed.

 

[Rolf Magnus]

Post #1, Me: How do I use the this pointer?
Post #2, Ambar: It's used this way.

Which didn't help you solve your problem, since that was another one that
could have been seen immediately when looking at the code.

Post #3, Me: Should I have defined my headers differently?
Post #4, You: "These silly guessing games are irritating and pointless."

We aren't mind readers, so how would anyone here know if an unknown header
is ok or not?

Two straight-forward questions.

They weren't.

 

[Default User]

Post #1, Me: How do I use the this pointer?
Post #2, Ambar: It's used this way.
Post #3, Me: Should I have defined my headers differently?
Post #4, You: "These silly guessing games are irritating and
pointless."

All of which would have been avoided by following the instructions.

Two straight-forward questions. Hardly a "guessing game." If this had
gone on for 10 or 20 posts you might have had a point...

Nonsense. Any waste of people's time here is too much.

Which is exactly what I did before and when I finally decided it was
appropriate to post the source code.

And in the mean time, caused a lot of confusion and irritation. Had you
done so from the beginning, that would have been avoided. That's why
the FAQ lays out how to ask questions.

If you don't know what the problem is, you don't know what information
those whom you're asking will require. So give them all.

You did it wrong. That wasn't a big deal. All you had to do was say,
"Yeah, I see that I should have done that from the beginning and not
guessed what information was needed." That would have been end of
story. Instead, you've been rude and argumentative, and needlessly
insulted the people you asked for help. The fact that you claim that
you insulted yourself is besides the point.





Brian

 

[Old Wolf]

How would it do that? I mean, after all, if you don't include the Class::,
you get a valid definition of a non-member function.

If the name of this function is the same as the name of a valid
member function but it is never called anywhere, and that valid
member function has been declared and called but not defined
anywhere .. you could put 2 and 2 together.

 

[Old Wolf]

Nonsense. Any waste of people's time here is too much.

You did it wrong. That wasn't a big deal. All you had to do was say,
"Yeah, I see that I should have done that from the beginning and not
guessed what information was needed." That would have been end of
story. Instead, you've been rude and argumentative, and needlessly
insulted the people you asked for help. The fact that you claim that
you insulted yourself is besides the point.

Don't you have anything better to do then argue back and
forth trying to get somebody to admit you were Right and
he was Wrong?

FWIW the OP made the correct selection of information to
present in the first place, and his problem was apparent.
(It doesn't take a genius to decipher the error message
about using 'this' in a non-member function).
It was you who failed to answer, citing the need for more
information, and then you carried on by abusing the OP
for not providing the unnecessary information beforehand!

 

[Victor Bazarov]

If the name of this function is the same as the name of a valid
member function but it is never called anywhere,

How can you tell what is called (and not called)? Only once the
linker is done resolving all symbols can you conclude with any
degree of certainty.

and that valid
member function has been declared and called but not defined
anywhere .. you could put 2 and 2 together.

Maybe you can (by virtue of knowing all the source code for your
entire project). The compiler cannot, especially while compiling
a single module. What if the definition is in another TU?

V

 

[Ed Dana]

Don't you have anything better to do then argue back and
forth trying to get somebody to admit you were Right and
he was Wrong?

FWIW the OP made the correct selection of information to
present in the first place, and his problem was apparent.
(It doesn't take a genius to decipher the error message
about using 'this' in a non-member function).
It was you who failed to answer, citing the need for more
information, and then you carried on by abusing the OP
for not providing the unnecessary information beforehand!

Thank you again, Old Wolf, but at this point, I think we're wasting our
time with this one. He clearly does not understand the concepts of
courtesy and charity.

I find it rather ironic and rather annoying that a person might come to
this group in need of assistance only to be bullied for not falling in
"lock step" with everyone else.

And he knows he's crossed the line, else he wouldn't need to inflate the
"charges" to something worse than what they really are, just as he is
doing now.

Ed.

 

[Rolf Magnus]

How can you tell what is called (and not called)? Only once the
linker is done resolving all symbols can you conclude with any
degree of certainty.

On many systems, dynamic linking and runtime loading of libraries come into
play, so you might not even know until the program finished running if a
specific function was called or not.