This is wrong, right?

[Steven T. Hatton]

Can't remember why I removed you from my kill file once. Guarantee it
won't happen again.

*plonk*

Real men don't advertise their kill file.

 

[Default User]

Can't remember why I removed you from my kill file once. Guarantee it
won't happen again.

*plonk*

He never left mine. Generally, once a jerk, always a jerk.



Brian

 

[Noah Roberts]

The silence of certain knowledgeable others regarding this thread is
sufficient to convince me that some do get it.

This is interesting logic you are using. You ask a question and the
only people replying are those asking you to clarify the question. You
take the fact that the question was never answered to mean that some
people know what you where asking and only those who tried to help
don't know anything...

Like I said, interesting logic; rather facinating really.

 

[Steven T. Hatton]

This is interesting logic you are using. You ask a question and the
only people replying are those asking you to clarify the question. You
take the fact that the question was never answered to mean that some
people know what you where asking and only those who tried to help
don't know anything...

Like I said, interesting logic; rather facinating really.

This is the message I sent to IBM this morning.

<quote>
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infoc....ibm.xlcpp8a.doc/language/ref/name_hiding.htm
Please relay this message to the appropriate authority so that the problem
will be addressed.

I am very grateful to IBM for making this excellent documentation available
to the public. While I was reading through the C++ language reference I
discovered a subtle yet significant error in one of the examples. The
subsection titled _Name hiding (C++ only)_ uses the term "using
declaration" to denote what is properly called a "using directive".

ISO/IEC 14882-2003 defines the term "using declaration" in §7.3.3,
and "using directive" in §7.3.4. The distinction is subtle, and many C++
programmers are not aware that it exists. That ignorance is reflected in
their programming style. A "using declaration" is usually superior to
a "using directive", but many do not even appreciate the distinction.

If such an authoritative reference as the AIX Compiler C++ Language
Reference does not make this distinction clear, and does not use the
terminology correctly, it is quite understandable that programmers who rely
on it will incorrectly understand the terminology.

Please review my observations to verify their correctness, and take what
action you deem appropriate to address this matter.
</quote>

 

[Noah Roberts]

ISO/IEC 14882-2003 defines the term "using declaration" in §7.3.3,
and "using directive" in §7.3.4. The distinction is subtle, and many C++
programmers are not aware that it exists. That ignorance is reflected in
their programming style. A "using declaration" is usually superior to
a "using directive", but many do not even appreciate the distinction.

Jeesh, you had your answer a long time ago:

Howard wrote:
Ok, so he said "using declaration" when he should have said "using
directive". Why not just say that up front? Quit acting like a troll
and
get to your point, or you'll find it very lonely here.


Your reply was the extremely rude:


The official IBM AIX C++ language reference has it wrong. Trying to
spell
out the point I am making would be moot. Either you get it our you
don't.

Here's one minor point to consider: Being an obnoxious arrogant twit
who
knows what he is talking about is far superior to being an obnoxious
arrogant twit who doesn't know what he is talking about.


Which understandibly left many thinking you must mean something else.

Now the point finally becomes clear...you're a jerk.

I will keep all of this in mind next time.

 

[Steven T. Hatton]

Jeesh, you had your answer a long time ago:

Howard wrote:
Ok, so he said "using declaration" when he should have said "using
directive". Why not just say that up front? Quit acting like a troll
and
get to your point, or you'll find it very lonely here.


Your reply was the extremely rude:


The official IBM AIX C++ language reference has it wrong. Trying to
spell
out the point I am making would be moot. Either you get it our you
don't.

Here's one minor point to consider: Being an obnoxious arrogant twit
who
knows what he is talking about is far superior to being an obnoxious
arrogant twit who doesn't know what he is talking about.


Which understandibly left many thinking you must mean something else.

Now the point finally becomes clear...you're a jerk.

I will keep all of this in mind next time.

This really has nothing to do with C++. The topic of this newsgroup is C++,
not me. If you have a complaint with me, take it off line.

 

[Howard]

Noah Roberts wrote:

This really has nothing to do with C++. The topic of this newsgroup is
C++,
not me. If you have a complaint with me, take it off line.

And your "minor point to consider" _was_ related to C++? As I said before,
it's going to get very lonely around here for you...

 

[Steven T. Hatton]

And your "minor point to consider" _was_ related to C++? As I said
before, it's going to get very lonely around here for you...

You crossed the line with me a long time ago. Please refrain from
addressing me in the future.

 

[Howard]

You crossed the line with me a long time ago. Please refrain from
addressing me in the future.

:-D