Never seen this before ...

[blangela]

What does the second const in the member function prototype below
dprotect? I believe the first const prevents the reference returned
from being modified and the third prevents the member function from
modifying the object that invokes it. The compiler accepts the
statement below, so what does the second const protect?

const string const &getPartNumber()const;

Cheers,

Bob

 

[Ian Collins]

What does the second const in the member function prototype below
dprotect? I believe the first const prevents the reference returned
from being modified and the third prevents the member function from
modifying the object that invokes it. The compiler accepts the
statement below, so what does the second const protect?

const string const &getPartNumber()const;

It's a syntax error.

 

[blangela]

It's a syntax error.

Then why does it compile without errors (there may be warnings - I
will have to check).

Bob

 

[Ian Collins]

*Please* don't quote signatures.

Then why does it compile without errors (there may be warnings - I
will have to check).

#include <string>

struct X
{
const std::string const &getPartNumber()const;
};

CC z.cc
"z.cc", line 5: Error: "const" has already been included in this
declaration.

g++ /tmp/z.cc
/tmp/z.cc:5: error: duplicate `const'

 

[blangela]

*Please* don't quote signatures.


#include <string>

struct X
{
  const std::string const &getPartNumber()const;

};

CC z.cc
"z.cc", line 5: Error: "const" has already been included in this
declaration.

g++ /tmp/z.cc
/tmp/z.cc:5: error: duplicate `const'

With my Microsoft VS 2008 Express C++ compiler I get:

"warning C4114: same type qualifier used more than once"

I should have looked closer at the warning messages before posting my
question.

 

[Lloyd Bonafide]

*Please* don't quote signatures.

Annoying, huh? Of course, one solution is to not attach the superfluous
bandwidth wasting signature in the first place, since your name already
appears in the header and, in this case, the attribution. How many times
do you need to see your name in lights when you post?

 

[Michael DOUBEZ]

Lloyd Bonafide a écrit :

Annoying, huh? Of course, one solution is to not attach the superfluous
bandwidth wasting signature in the first place, since your name already
appears in the header and, in this case, the attribution. How many times
do you need to see your name in lights when you post?

I don't see the problem, Netiquette doesn't forbid signatures (4 lines
is the line). All the most when it is preceded by two dash and a blank
that indicate to the newsreader to cut off the signature.

But, trimming a text correctly before sending it is part of the good
usage of USENET.

Michael

 

[lbonafide]

I don't see the problem, Netiquette doesn't forbid signatures (4 lines
is the line).

A rather arbitrary rule.

But, trimming a text correctly before sending it is part of the good
usage of USENET.

Whatever. 1 in 1000 posts may exhibit this "problem", while 995
contain sigs in the first place, because some arbitrary "netiquette"
guideline says it's OK to waste four lines per post.

 

[Michael DOUBEZ]

(e-mail address removed) a écrit :

A rather arbitrary rule.

What is not arbitrary unless it is revealed ?
A fitting subject for soc.religion but not here.

The fact is that USENET is a social group that by ruled by a culture.
Part of those rules have been captured by the netiquette.

Whatever. 1 in 1000 posts may exhibit this "problem", while 995
contain sigs in the first place, because some arbitrary "netiquette"
guideline says it's OK to waste four lines per post.

The culture says so. If you are not happy, make a proposal to change a
30 year old practice.
More practically, 4 lines for a signature is considered acceptable up to
now but if you don't like signature, use a newsreader that trims them.

Michael

 

[lbonafide]

The culture says so. If you are not happy, make a proposal to change a
30 year old practice.

Make a proposal to whom? Who owns Usenet and creates and enforces
these guidelines? Who decides what they are?

 

[Matthias Buelow]

Make a proposal to whom? Who owns Usenet and creates and enforces
these guidelines? Who decides what they are?

Those who do not listen to your prattling.

 

[Default User]

Michael DOUBEZ wrote:

I don't see the problem, Netiquette doesn't forbid signatures (4
lines is the line). All the most when it is preceded by two dash and
a blank that indicate to the newsreader to cut off the signature.

But, trimming a text correctly before sending it is part of the good
usage of USENET.

The problem occurs mainly (but not exclusively) in posts from Google
Groups. In yet another of it's less than perfect aspects, it doesn't
automatically trim .sigs, the way most newsreaders will.




Brian

 

[lbonafide]

Those who do not listen to your prattling.

Why the personal attack? I researched posting guidelines and found
nothing written about quoting signatures, nor any authority by those
who wrote them.

And by the way, I follow the guidelines and indeed said that it is
annoying when people quote sigs, I just find it odd that one thinks
sigs themselves are OK because "it is written".

Written by someone nobody can identify, apparently.

 

[Default User]

Why the personal attack? I researched posting guidelines and found
nothing written about quoting signatures, nor any authority by those
who wrote them.

And by the way, I follow the guidelines and indeed said that it is
annoying when people quote sigs, I just find it odd that one thinks
sigs themselves are OK because "it is written".

Written by someone nobody can identify, apparently.

The Network Working Group for the most part, codified through the RFCs.
You couldn't have done much "research" if you failed to discover that.




Brian

 

[Lloyd Bonafide]

The Network Working Group for the most part, codified through the
RFCs. You couldn't have done much "research" if you failed to discover
that.

Sorry, this really isn't important enough to explore that deeply, so
maybe "research" was a bad choice of words.

OK, so I found it here, written in 1995 by one S. Hambridge of Intel:

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

"This document provides a minimum set of guidelines for Network
Etiquette (Netiquette) which organizations may take and adapt for
their own use."

Sorry, seems pretty arbitrary and definitely optional.

 

[Ian Collins]

Annoying, huh? Of course, one solution is to not attach the superfluous
bandwidth wasting signature in the first place, since your name already
appears in the header and, in this case, the attribution. How many times
do you need to see your name in lights when you post?

If I signed my posting in the body of the message, everyone would have
to trim it. The point of signatures and the signature delimiter is
proper news readers snip them and format them correctly.

This worked fine until google came along and decided to ignore Usenet
convention. Not only does their abomination of an interface not snip
signatures, it thwarts attempts by its unfortunate users to include a
correctly formatted one.

 

[James Kanze]

innews:[email protected]:

Sorry, this really isn't important enough to explore that deeply, so
maybe "research" was a bad choice of words.

OK, so I found it here, written in 1995 by one S. Hambridge of Intel:

"This document provides a minimum set of guidelines for Network
Etiquette (Netiquette) which organizations may take and adapt for
their own use."

Sorry, seems pretty arbitrary and definitely optional.

An RFC, and you say "definitely optional"? Despite the name
(Request For Comments), RFC's are the official standards for the
net.

For the record, it's generally considered desirable that all
pertinent information be found in the body of the posting, and
that you don't have to look in the headers to find additional
information. It was also considered desirable that people could
identify them as people in email and postings, with their real
names (and addresses, and phone numbers, if they wanted), and
not just their login ids. This motivated the original creation
of the signature. When (some) people started abusing (with
signatures of over a hundred lines at times, complete with ASCII
art), the people responsible for the net decided to draw a line.
The exact value is 4 lines; more is formally considered abuse.
In practice, however, if you happen to have five, I don't think
there'd be much complaint (except that a good newsreader or
email client won't send the message).

Similarly, other standard practices evolved. They don't have
the force of law, but they are respected by civilized net
citizens.

 

[James Kanze]

The problem occurs mainly (but not exclusively) in posts from Google
Groups. In yet another of it's less than perfect aspects, it doesn't
automatically trim .sigs, the way most newsreaders will.

The problem was present long before Google groups---I don't
think Outlook Explorer trims sigs either (or at least, it didn't
at one time).

But that's really shoving off the blame. For various reasons, I
post through Google groups, but you won't find quoted signatures
in my postings (unless I slip up). Google groups does have a
lot of problems, but this one is easy to avoid. (Note that if
you're a responsible poster, you'll be trimming anyway. Whether
the sig is there or not really doesn't make much difference.)

 

[Ian Collins]

But that's really shoving off the blame. For various reasons, I
post through Google groups, but you won't find quoted signatures
in my postings (unless I slip up). Google groups does have a
lot of problems, but this one is easy to avoid. (Note that if
you're a responsible poster, you'll be trimming anyway. Whether
the sig is there or not really doesn't make much difference.)

But should you knowingly post a broken signature?

 

[Default User]

The problem was present long before Google groups---I don't
think Outlook Explorer trims sigs either (or at least, it didn't
at one time).

But that's really shoving off the blame. For various reasons, I
post through Google groups, but you won't find quoted signatures
in my postings (unless I slip up).

I didn't state, and didn't intend to imply, that all GG posters do so.
I'm also aware that not all newsreaders auto-trim. However, if you do
count, I'll think you find that the overwhelming majority of posted
..sigs comes from GG users. That's why I said, "mainly (but not
exclusively)".




Brian