Re: Troll meets Monolith

Discussion in 'C++' started by Juha Nieminen, Feb 16, 2011.

  1. Leigh Johnston <> 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.
     
    Juha Nieminen, Feb 16, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Juha Nieminen

    gwowen Guest

    On Feb 16, 3:48 pm, Juha Nieminen <> 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.
     
    gwowen, Feb 16, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Leigh Johnston <> 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...
     
    Juha Nieminen, Feb 17, 2011
    #3
  4. Juha Nieminen

    gwowen Guest

    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.
     
    gwowen, Feb 17, 2011
    #4
  5. Leigh Johnston <> 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.)
     
    Juha Nieminen, Feb 17, 2011
    #5
  6. Juha Nieminen

    gwowen Guest

    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.'
     
    gwowen, Feb 17, 2011
    #6
  7. Juha Nieminen

    gwowen Guest

    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
     
    gwowen, Feb 17, 2011
    #7
  8. Juha Nieminen

    gwowen Guest

    On Feb 17, 1:14 pm, Leigh Johnston <> 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.
     
    gwowen, Feb 17, 2011
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. E. Robert Tisdale
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,514
    Default User
    Jun 23, 2003
  2. E. Robert Tisdale
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    341
    David White
    Jul 21, 2003
  3. E. Robert Tisdale

    Troll Alert: isn't exactly rocket science

    E. Robert Tisdale, Nov 7, 2003, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    359
    jeffc
    Nov 7, 2003
  4. E. Robert Tisdale

    Troll Alert

    E. Robert Tisdale, Feb 8, 2004, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    404
    E. Robert Tisdale
    Feb 8, 2004
  5. E. Robert Tisdale

    Troll Alert

    E. Robert Tisdale, Feb 8, 2004, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    427
    E. Robert Tisdale
    Feb 8, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page