technical correctness

Discussion in 'C++' started by Paul, Dec 31, 2010.

  1. Paul

    Paul Guest

    I had an argument with some guy called Francis Glasssboro.
    He tried to wangle the term input to mean some bullshit it doesn't mean.
    He tried to misquote text from the standards to mean something it wasn't
    supposed to mean .


    What is the point of these forums if we have no respect for technical
    correctness?
    When he is wrong but will not, and cannot, admit he is wrong, he can be
    nothing more than a wanking idiot.
     
    Paul, Dec 31, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 31 déc, 11:08, "Paul" <> wrote:
    > I had an argument with some guy called Francis Glasssboro.


    You must mean Francis Glassborow.

    > He tried to wangle the term input to mean some bullshit it doesn't mean.
    > He tried to misquote text from the standards to mean something it wasn't
    > supposed to mean .


    So you seem to think.

    >
    > What is the point of these forums if we have no respect for technical
    > correctness?


    Bickering ... ehhh ... Discussion

    > When he is wrong but will not, and cannot, admit he is wrong, he can be
    > nothing more than a wanking idiot.


    If you think he cannot, then what's the point ? Working with others'
    limitations is part of social life.

    Concerning Francis Glassborow, I know him only from his work at the
    ACCU but what I have seen of him doesn't fit with what you describes.
    He is also a former teacher and has written a book about C++ for
    beginner (with good reviews) which speaks for him.

    Maybe you could reconsider the presence of a blind spot in your
    reasonning.

    --
    Michael
     
    Michael Doubez, Dec 31, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Dec 31, 10:08 am, "Paul" <> wrote:

    > I had an argument with some guy called Francis Glasssboro.
    > He tried to wangle the term input to mean some <nonsense> it doesn't mean..
    > He tried to misquote text from the standards to mean something it wasn't
    > supposed to mean .
    >
    > What is the point of these forums if we have no respect for technical
    > correctness?
    > When he is wrong but will not, and cannot, admit he is wrong, he can be
    > nothing more than a <expletive> idiot.


    where was this discussion? I couldn't find it with google. Francis is
    usually pretty sensible. Perhaps we should be able to judge for
    ourselves the quality of the post you refer to.
     
    Nick Keighley, Dec 31, 2010
    #3
  4. Paul wrote:
    > I had an argument with some guy [...] He tried to wangle the term input
    > to mean some bullshit it doesn't mean. He tried to misquote text from
    > the standards to mean something it wasn't supposed to mean .


    All this happens. The Usenet is a place where people find a forum for
    discussion. Different interpretations of things like the C++ standard are
    a common topic which people bring up to get a better (and peer-reviewed)
    understanding of it.

    > When he is wrong but will not, and cannot, admit he is wrong, he can
    > be nothing more than a wanking idiot.


    You don't have anything like a right that guarantees you that if someone
    else is wrong they have to admit it. Best you get over it, because the
    anger doesn't become you; Your posting rather makes you look like a fool
    ATM.

    Sorry.

    Uli
     
    Ulrich Eckhardt, Dec 31, 2010
    #4
  5. Paul

    Balog Pal Guest

    "Paul" <>
    >I had an argument with some guy called Francis Glasssboro.
    > He tried to wangle the term input to mean some bullshit it doesn't mean.
    > He tried to misquote text from the standards to mean something it wasn't
    > supposed to mean .


    Aww, sure, is this still the issue passing 3 months?here:
    http://www.phwinfo.com/forum/comp-lang-cplus/463378-input-cin.html

    (note: news.virginmedia.com == paul as in OP)
    <quote>
    09/18/10, 10:55 #18
    news.virginmedia.com


    Re: input to cin
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    "Francis Glassborow" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 18/09/2010 00:21, news.virginmedia.com wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> "Francesco S. Carta" <> wrote in message
    >> news:4c93dd94$0$6830$...
    >>> news.virginmedia.com <>, on 17/09/2010 20:34:24,
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Francesco S. Carta" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:4c93b0d7$0$30906$...
    >>>>> news.virginmedia.com <>, on 17/09/2010 17:41:23,
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> You don't seem to have a point other than to create an argument.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> All right, so let's check if we really have an argument and let's do
    >>>>> it step by step.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I kindly ask you to reply to the following question with a "yes" or a
    >>>>> "no". You might eventually add any comment, as you wish (of course)
    >>>>> and I'll eagerly reply to any question of yours in the same manner.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You seem a very intelligent person to me, I hope you'll agree that
    >>>>> this is a good way to clarify any misunderstanding.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Do you object to the fact of considering the "std::cin >> object"
    >>>>> operation as an "input operation"?
    >>>>>
    >>>> I see who have snipped almost everything from the previous post.
    >>>> From this can we take it that you accept all the previous as correct or
    >>>> are you simply avoiding these issues?
    >>>
    >>> None of the two options. We will return to every and each step at due
    >>> time, if you'll consider it necessary.
    >>>
    >>> I'm just trying to clarify your last objection, that is, the fact that
    >>> I could be creating an argument where there might be none in reality.
    >>>
    >>> You might think that I'm kidding or something, but I'm serious.
    >>>
    >>> I'm seriously thinking that I could have been creating something out
    >>> of the void, and I'm seeking your in order to clarify it.
    >>>
    >>> So, according to your view of the word "input", would you call "input"
    >>> the action of transferring some data from std::cin to an object?
    >>>
    >>> --

    >> I don't see how I can be any more clear about my view of input.
    >> I will state my view once again if it makes it any clearer:
    >>
    >> With regards to the input streams which is the current context we're
    >> referring to, we have:
    >> source data -> stream -> object.
    >> In this scenario I regard the input as the step data-> stream.
    >>
    >> The question you put forward is... would I call the next step of this
    >> process input re:
    >> stream -> object
    >> This could be regarded as input to the object but if you call this input
    >> is becomes confused with the main input process. It's much less
    >> confusing to simply call this extraction or use some other word or
    >> phrase.

    >
    > So that is a very long way of writing 'No' ? Correct me if I am mistaken.


    >
    > However note that the C++ Standard (which in context is what we are
    > talking about) talks about input functions.


    Is this is forum about the C++ standards? No.
    So now YOU want to change the context to that of the standards?

    You are also missing the big picture, that is you fail to acknowledge the
    stream object.
    As the >> operator is a member of the stream object I think It is
    unreasonable to ignore it.

    >A function is evaluated and in the case of operator >> the result is a
    >pointer value which can, when necessary, be converted to a bool. I think it
    >is not unreasonable to think that an input function does input, though in
    >this case the input seems to be to a variable.

    You , like Francesco, seem to be focusing ONLY on the extraction. You seem
    to be trying to say that the main input process is extraction from the
    stream to an object.

    Ok lets say we are creating an input processing function, what is one of the
    first things this function must to do?
    Check for successful input.
    Yes this function can be called an input function , or an input processing
    function, but context of input here is input to the function because the
    focus is the function.
    If the focus is the stream the input is input to stream.

    > I think the Standard is written that way because the 'input functions' are
    > not required to get external input, it may be provided from within the
    > program. Yes it might have been better to have called them extraction
    > functions and if you feel strongly you can go to comp.std.C++ and raise a
    > defect report. That is where such word games belong.
    >
    >

    When people write standards their context is different as they are defining
    a language, let me explain:

    Suppose we a given a project to create a C++ stream library that reads and
    write to a USB device.
    But the C++ standards don't define USB devices, therefore its not a valid
    C++ program? Of course this is wrong, it's is because the C++ standards are
    in a different context.

    You seem to be misinterpreting the purpose of the C++ standards as a
    definition of the contextual interpretation of software engineering terms.
    The C++ Standards is simply a guide that defines the expected behavior of
    the language, it certainly doesn't define software engineering terms.


    </quote>
     
    Balog Pal, Dec 31, 2010
    #5
  6. Paul

    Paul Guest

    "Nick Keighley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Dec 31, 10:08 am, "Paul" <> wrote:

    > I had an argument with some guy called Francis Glasssboro.
    > He tried to wangle the term input to mean some <nonsense> it doesn't mean.
    > He tried to misquote text from the standards to mean something it wasn't
    > supposed to mean .
    >
    > What is the point of these forums if we have no respect for technical
    > correctness?
    > When he is wrong but will not, and cannot, admit he is wrong, he can be
    > nothing more than a <expletive> idiot.


    where was this discussion? I couldn't find it with google. Francis is
    usually pretty sensible. Perhaps we should be able to judge for
    ourselves the quality of the post you refer to.

    Most of the argument was done by his freind Francesco ref:
    http://groups.google.com/group/alt....14f/d931599ea3db1ae2?q=clear idea about input

    Francis fully supported Francesco in his arguments with numerous postings
    such as this one:
    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c /msg/a70e0c43be410f2e
     
    Paul, Dec 31, 2010
    #6
  7. Paul

    Paul Guest

    "Ulrich Eckhardt" <> wrote in message
    news:-berlin.de...
    > Paul wrote:
    >> I had an argument with some guy [...] He tried to wangle the term input
    >> to mean some bullshit it doesn't mean. He tried to misquote text from
    >> the standards to mean something it wasn't supposed to mean .

    >
    > All this happens. The Usenet is a place where people find a forum for
    > discussion. Different interpretations of things like the C++ standard are
    > a common topic which people bring up to get a better (and peer-reviewed)
    > understanding of it.
    >
    >> When he is wrong but will not, and cannot, admit he is wrong, he can
    >> be nothing more than a wanking idiot.

    >
    > You don't have anything like a right that guarantees you that if someone
    > else is wrong they have to admit it. Best you get over it, because the
    > anger doesn't become you; Your posting rather makes you look like a fool
    > ATM.
    >
    > Sorry.
    >
    > Uli
    >
    >

    Hmm anger........^_^
    Where did that come from?
    No need to apologise for your post, really its ok. But I'm gonna ask you a
    little question, feel free to answer if you like .........

    How many standards apply to C++?
     
    Paul, Dec 31, 2010
    #7
  8. Paul

    Paul Guest

    "Balog Pal" <> wrote in message
    news:ifl53a$248f$...
    > "Paul" <>
    >>I had an argument with some guy called Francis Glasssboro.
    >> He tried to wangle the term input to mean some bullshit it doesn't mean.
    >> He tried to misquote text from the standards to mean something it wasn't
    >> supposed to mean .

    >
    > Aww, sure, is this still the issue passing 3 months?here:
    > http://www.phwinfo.com/forum/comp-lang-cplus/463378-input-cin.html
    >
    > (note: news.virginmedia.com == paul as in OP)
    > <quote>
    > 09/18/10, 10:55 #18
    > news.virginmedia.com
    >
    >
    > Re: input to cin
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    >
    >
    > "Francis Glassborow" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On 18/09/2010 00:21, news.virginmedia.com wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Francesco S. Carta" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:4c93dd94$0$6830$...
    >>>> news.virginmedia.com <>, on 17/09/2010 20:34:24,
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Francesco S. Carta" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:4c93b0d7$0$30906$...
    >>>>>> news.virginmedia.com <>, on 17/09/2010 17:41:23,
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> You don't seem to have a point other than to create an argument.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> All right, so let's check if we really have an argument and let's do
    >>>>>> it step by step.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I kindly ask you to reply to the following question with a "yes" or a
    >>>>>> "no". You might eventually add any comment, as you wish (of course)
    >>>>>> and I'll eagerly reply to any question of yours in the same manner.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You seem a very intelligent person to me, I hope you'll agree that
    >>>>>> this is a good way to clarify any misunderstanding.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Do you object to the fact of considering the "std::cin >> object"
    >>>>>> operation as an "input operation"?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> I see who have snipped almost everything from the previous post.
    >>>>> From this can we take it that you accept all the previous as correct
    >>>>> or
    >>>>> are you simply avoiding these issues?
    >>>>
    >>>> None of the two options. We will return to every and each step at due
    >>>> time, if you'll consider it necessary.
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm just trying to clarify your last objection, that is, the fact that
    >>>> I could be creating an argument where there might be none in reality.
    >>>>
    >>>> You might think that I'm kidding or something, but I'm serious.
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm seriously thinking that I could have been creating something out
    >>>> of the void, and I'm seeking your in order to clarify it.
    >>>>
    >>>> So, according to your view of the word "input", would you call "input"
    >>>> the action of transferring some data from std::cin to an object?
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>> I don't see how I can be any more clear about my view of input.
    >>> I will state my view once again if it makes it any clearer:
    >>>
    >>> With regards to the input streams which is the current context we're
    >>> referring to, we have:
    >>> source data -> stream -> object.
    >>> In this scenario I regard the input as the step data-> stream.
    >>>
    >>> The question you put forward is... would I call the next step of this
    >>> process input re:
    >>> stream -> object
    >>> This could be regarded as input to the object but if you call this input
    >>> is becomes confused with the main input process. It's much less
    >>> confusing to simply call this extraction or use some other word or
    >>> phrase.

    >>
    >> So that is a very long way of writing 'No' ? Correct me if I am mistaken.

    >
    >>
    >> However note that the C++ Standard (which in context is what we are
    >> talking about) talks about input functions.

    >
    > Is this is forum about the C++ standards? No.
    > So now YOU want to change the context to that of the standards?
    >
    > You are also missing the big picture, that is you fail to acknowledge the
    > stream object.
    > As the >> operator is a member of the stream object I think It is
    > unreasonable to ignore it.
    >
    >>A function is evaluated and in the case of operator >> the result is a
    >>pointer value which can, when necessary, be converted to a bool. I think
    >>it
    >>is not unreasonable to think that an input function does input, though in
    >>this case the input seems to be to a variable.

    > You , like Francesco, seem to be focusing ONLY on the extraction. You seem
    > to be trying to say that the main input process is extraction from the
    > stream to an object.
    >
    > Ok lets say we are creating an input processing function, what is one of
    > the
    > first things this function must to do?
    > Check for successful input.
    > Yes this function can be called an input function , or an input processing
    > function, but context of input here is input to the function because the
    > focus is the function.
    > If the focus is the stream the input is input to stream.
    >
    >> I think the Standard is written that way because the 'input functions'
    >> are
    >> not required to get external input, it may be provided from within the
    >> program. Yes it might have been better to have called them extraction
    >> functions and if you feel strongly you can go to comp.std.C++ and raise a
    >> defect report. That is where such word games belong.
    >>
    >>

    > When people write standards their context is different as they are
    > defining
    > a language, let me explain:
    >
    > Suppose we a given a project to create a C++ stream library that reads and
    > write to a USB device.
    > But the C++ standards don't define USB devices, therefore its not a valid
    > C++ program? Of course this is wrong, it's is because the C++ standards
    > are
    > in a different context.
    >
    > You seem to be misinterpreting the purpose of the C++ standards as a
    > definition of the contextual interpretation of software engineering terms.
    > The C++ Standards is simply a guide that defines the expected behavior of
    > the language, it certainly doesn't define software engineering terms.
    >
    >
    > </quote>
    >
    >


    Yep apparently they're misinterpreting the standards.
     
    Paul, Jan 1, 2011
    #8
  9. Paul

    Paul Guest

    "Michael Doubez" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On 31 déc, 11:08, "Paul" <> wrote:
    > I had an argument with some guy called Francis Glasssboro.


    You must mean Francis Glassborow.

    > He tried to wangle the term input to mean some bullshit it doesn't mean.
    > He tried to misquote text from the standards to mean something it wasn't
    > supposed to mean .


    So you seem to think.

    >
    > What is the point of these forums if we have no respect for technical
    > correctness?


    Bickering ... ehhh ... Discussion

    > When he is wrong but will not, and cannot, admit he is wrong, he can be
    > nothing more than a wanking idiot.


    If you think he cannot, then what's the point ? Working with others'
    limitations is part of social life.

    Concerning Francis Glassborow, I know him only from his work at the
    ACCU but what I have seen of him doesn't fit with what you describes.
    He is also a former teacher and has written a book about C++ for
    beginner (with good reviews) which speaks for him.

    Maybe you could reconsider the presence of a blind spot in your
    reasonning.

    --
    Michael

    I see it's some kinda celebrity status here, programming skills not
    required. I heard Victoria Beckham starteed programming she's very high up
    in the programming community especially since she joined ACCU.

    The only blind spot I acknowledge is the blindness to technical correctness.
     
    Paul, Jan 1, 2011
    #9
  10. Paul

    Geoff Guest

    Two Buddhist monks were walking in the forest on a pilgrimage. On the
    path at the edge of a stream they beheld a beautiful woman who was
    afraid to cross the stream for fear of getting her beautiful clothes
    wet from the water.

    The eldest monk without a word simply picked her up and carried her
    over the stream to the other side. The youngest one was shocked and
    scandalized by such behavior from the elder monk but didn't say
    anything about it.

    After many days of walking and as they were about to reach the temple
    the younger monk asked the elder about the incident, saying, "Do you
    not think it was wrong to touch the beautiful woman and carry her
    across the stream?"

    The old man said, "I put her down at the side of the stream and never
    gave her another thought. Have you been carrying her in your mind all
    this time?"
     
    Geoff, Jan 1, 2011
    #10
  11. Paul

    Paul Guest

    "Geoff" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Two Buddhist monks were walking in the forest on a pilgrimage. On the
    > path at the edge of a stream they beheld a beautiful woman who was
    > afraid to cross the stream for fear of getting her beautiful clothes
    > wet from the water.
    >
    > The eldest monk without a word simply picked her up and carried her
    > over the stream to the other side. The youngest one was shocked and
    > scandalized by such behavior from the elder monk but didn't say
    > anything about it.
    >
    > After many days of walking and as they were about to reach the temple
    > the younger monk asked the elder about the incident, saying, "Do you
    > not think it was wrong to touch the beautiful woman and carry her
    > across the stream?"
    >
    > The old man said, "I put her down at the side of the stream and never
    > gave her another thought. Have you been carrying her in your mind all
    > this time?"


    nice thought

    I'd carry that one in my mind forever :)

    happy new year.
     
    Paul, Jan 1, 2011
    #11
  12. Paul

    Paul Guest

    "Geoff" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Two Buddhist monks were walking in the forest on a pilgrimage. On the
    > path at the edge of a stream they beheld a beautiful woman who was
    > afraid to cross the stream for fear of getting her beautiful clothes
    > wet from the water.
    >
    > The eldest monk without a word simply picked her up and carried her
    > over the stream to the other side. The youngest one was shocked and
    > scandalized by such behavior from the elder monk but didn't say
    > anything about it.
    >
    > After many days of walking and as they were about to reach the temple
    > the younger monk asked the elder about the incident, saying, "Do you
    > not think it was wrong to touch the beautiful woman and carry her
    > across the stream?"
    >
    > The old man said, "I put her down at the side of the stream and never
    > gave her another thought. Have you been carrying her in your mind all
    > this time?"
    >

    oh she wasn't an indian babe by any chance?
     
    Paul, Jan 1, 2011
    #12
  13. Paul wrote:
    > But I'm gonna ask you a little question, feel free to answer if you
    > like .........
    >
    > How many standards apply to C++?


    I don't see the relevance here and I'm afraid this will wind down to a
    nitpicking contest, so I'll decline your offer.

    http://xkcd.com/386/

    Uli
    - off duty -
     
    Ulrich Eckhardt, Jan 1, 2011
    #13
  14. Paul

    Paul Guest

    "Ulrich Eckhardt" <> wrote in message
    news:-berlin.de...
    > Paul wrote:
    >> But I'm gonna ask you a little question, feel free to answer if you
    >> like .........
    >>
    >> How many standards apply to C++?

    >
    > I don't see the relevance here and I'm afraid this will wind down to a
    > nitpicking contest, so I'll decline your offer.
    >
    > http://xkcd.com/386/
    >
    > Uli
    > - off duty -
    >

    There is no need to be afraid of being incorrect as nobody knows everything.
    I don't intend to start a nitpicking contest and I am unsure myself , which
    if why I asked. I only ask because some people refer to standards plural and
    others singular. Someone once told me only the singular was correct, however
    they provided no explanation of why standards must always be singular. I
    think either can be used and as you said it seems like nitpicking :)
     
    Paul, Jan 2, 2011
    #14
  15. Paul wrote:
    > "Ulrich Eckhardt" <> wrote in message
    > news:-berlin.de...
    >> Paul wrote:
    >>> But I'm gonna ask you a little question, feel free to answer if you
    >>> like .........
    >>>
    >>> How many standards apply to C++?

    >>
    >> I don't see the relevance here and I'm afraid this will wind down to a
    >> nitpicking contest, so I'll decline your offer.

    [...]
    > There is no need to be afraid of being incorrect as nobody knows
    > everything.


    I may be misinterpreting what you want to express here, but you seem to be
    implying that I am afraid of being incorrect, which is not the case. The
    thing I'm afraid of is that this discussion is mostly pointless and in
    particular irrelevant to the initial topic of the thread.

    > I don't intend to start a nitpicking contest and I am unsure
    > myself , which if why I asked.


    Again, you haven't said how this is relevant in a discussion about
    behavior in discussions on the net, so I suggest that you start a new
    thread on the topic. However, don't try asking questions in such a silly
    way as you did here though. People here are not your pawns that answer
    with yes/no on your order, as this has no value to them. Rather, try to
    incite a fruitful discussion by explaining both sides of the problem as
    you perceive them and then asking for other views of the issue.

    Good luck!

    Uli
     
    Ulrich Eckhardt, Jan 2, 2011
    #15
  16. Paul

    Rui Maciel Guest

    Paul wrote:

    > Hmm anger........^_^
    > Where did that come from?


    Your post does amount to nothing more than petty spite.


    Rui Maciel
     
    Rui Maciel, Jan 2, 2011
    #16
  17. Paul

    James Kanze Guest

    On Dec 31 2010, 1:01 pm, Umut Tabak <> wrote:
    > On 12/31/2010 11:08 AM, Paul wrote:


    > > When he is wrong but will not, and cannot, admit he is wrong, he can be
    > > nothing more than a wanking idiot.


    > This is a strong one, himself will come into play I suppose.


    I doubt he'll waste his time. If this is the discussion I think
    it is, Francis (and others) were simple expressing the consensus
    of the C++ communitee (and most other experts).

    --
    James Kanze
     
    James Kanze, Jan 2, 2011
    #17
  18. Paul

    Paul Guest

    "James Kanze" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Dec 31 2010, 1:01 pm, Umut Tabak <> wrote:
    >> On 12/31/2010 11:08 AM, Paul wrote:

    >
    >> > When he is wrong but will not, and cannot, admit he is wrong, he can be
    >> > nothing more than a wanking idiot.

    >
    >> This is a strong one, himself will come into play I suppose.

    >
    > I doubt he'll waste his time. If this is the discussion I think
    > it is, Francis (and others) were simple expressing the consensus
    > of the C++ communitee (and most other experts).
    >
    > --
    > James Kanze
    >

    You, who has made a petty attempt to appear intellectual, have failed
    miserably by displaying the spelling skills of a 5 year old and I doubt you
    are in any position to speak on behalf of 'most experts'.
     
    Paul, Jan 3, 2011
    #18
  19. Paul

    RaZiel Guest

    On 03.01.2011 02:31, Paul wrote:
    >
    > "James Kanze" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Dec 31 2010, 1:01 pm, Umut Tabak <> wrote:
    >>> On 12/31/2010 11:08 AM, Paul wrote:

    >>
    >>> > When he is wrong but will not, and cannot, admit he is wrong, he
    >>> can be
    >>> > nothing more than a wanking idiot.

    >>
    >>> This is a strong one, himself will come into play I suppose.

    >>
    >> I doubt he'll waste his time. If this is the discussion I think
    >> it is, Francis (and others) were simple expressing the consensus
    >> of the C++ communitee (and most other experts).
    >>
    >> --
    >> James Kanze
    >>

    > You, who has made a petty attempt to appear intellectual, have failed
    > miserably by displaying the spelling skills of a 5 year old and I doubt
    > you are in any position to speak on behalf of 'most experts'.


    Is it you, Sheldon?
     
    RaZiel, Jan 3, 2011
    #19
  20. On 1 jan, 02:28, "Paul" <> wrote:
    > "Michael Doubez" <> wrote in message
    > >
    > > news:...
    > > On 31 d c, 11:08, "Paul" <> wrote:
    > > > I had an argument with some guy called Francis Glasssboro.

    [snip]
    > > Concerning Francis Glassborow, I know him only from his work at the
    > > ACCU but what I have seen of him doesn't fit with what you describes.
    > > He is also a former teacher and has written a book about C++ for
    > > beginner (with good reviews) which speaks for him.
    > >
    > > Maybe you could reconsider the presence of a blind spot in your
    > > reasonning.

    >
    >
    > I see it's some kinda celebrity status here, programming skills not
    > required. I heard Victoria Beckham starteed programming she's very high up
    > in the programming community especially since she joined ACCU.


    It is not a matter of celebrity but recognition of his involvement and
    skills both within the ACCU and in the C++ community.

    As for the threads about technical correctness you refers to, anybody
    can read them and make up their own mind.

    > The only blind spot I acknowledge is the blindness to technical correctness.


    That may be part of the problem.

    Let things cool off. Nobody cares about who is right or wrong, the
    important is the result of the discussion: do you agree or not with
    the technical outcome? If not, then it may be a good post for
    comp.lang.c++.

    --
    Michael
     
    Michael Doubez, Jan 3, 2011
    #20
    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. Ryan Stewart
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    399
    Ryan Stewart
    Mar 7, 2004
  2. spiros
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    499
    John Harrison
    Jul 20, 2004
  3. Jim Strathmeyer

    stl list, const correctness

    Jim Strathmeyer, Mar 19, 2005, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    524
    Pete Becker
    Mar 20, 2005
  4. Matthias Kaeppler

    const-correctness and lambda expression

    Matthias Kaeppler, Apr 16, 2005, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    629
    Kanenas
    Apr 20, 2005
  5. PaulR

    technical correctness 2

    PaulR, Jan 6, 2011, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    428
Loading...

Share This Page