technical correctness

[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 .


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.

 

[Michael Doubez]

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.

 

[Nick Keighley]

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.

 

[Ulrich Eckhardt]

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

 

[Balog Pal]

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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>

 

[Paul]

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]

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]

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






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.

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.

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]

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.

 

[Geoff]

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?"

 

[Paul]

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]

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?

 

[Ulrich Eckhardt]

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 -

 

[Paul]

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

 

[Ulrich Eckhardt]

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

 

[Rui Maciel]

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

Your post does amount to nothing more than petty spite.


Rui Maciel

 

[James Kanze]

On 12/31/2010 11:08 AM, Paul wrote:

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).

 

[Paul]

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).

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'.

 

[RaZiel]

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?

 

[Michael Doubez]

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++.