New release of the C Containers Library (CCL)

[Jon]

I do know what a POD type is, and I know what a concrete class is as
well. Your definition contains elements of both, but is neither.

Keep thinking that if you want to, but you are wrong.

 

[Seebs]

Your definition contains elements of both, but is neither.

Nietzsche said "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster,
and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

I think that, on consideration, you will find this quote directly
applicable to your current circumstance with respect to "Jon".

-s

 

[MartinBroadhurst]

Which built-in types? Integers?

class C
{
/* No need to define a default constructor; one is implicitly
defined */
/* No need to define a copy constructor; one is implicitly defined
*/
/* No need to define a copy-assignment operator; one is implicitly
defined */
/* No need to define a destructor; one is implicitly defined */
};

C c1;
C c2;
c1 += c2; /* Damn! */

Martin

 

[MartinBroadhurst]

Nietzsche said "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster,
and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

I think that, on consideration, you will find this quote directly
applicable to your current circumstance with respect to "Jon".

Nietzche also said, "What, then are the ultimate truths of mankind?
They are the *irrefutable errors*".

Jon is aiming for irrefutable error, and his technique is coming along
quite well, but he isn't quite there yet.

Martin

 

[MartinBroadhurst]

Jon, you're so wrong that people who are merely massively in error
look to you for consolation.
You're so wrong that the people of the planet Wrong have rung to say
that they don't know you.
You're so wrong that somewhere in Paris, there is an aluminium
simulacrum of you; it is the SI unit of being wrong.

Martin

 

[Jon]

Which built-in types? Integers?

class C
{
/* No need to define a default constructor; one is implicitly
defined */
/* No need to define a copy constructor; one is implicitly defined
*/
/* No need to define a copy-assignment operator; one is implicitly
defined */
/* No need to define a destructor; one is implicitly defined */
};

C c1;
C c2;
c1 += c2; /* Damn! */

I've said all that needs to be said with "my" "definition" above. Use it
or don't. "No skin off of my nose". *I* didn't make the definition, the
language creators did. Take it up with them.

 

[Jon]

Which built-in types? Integers?

class C
{
/* No need to define a default constructor; one is implicitly
defined */
/* No need to define a copy constructor; one is implicitly defined
*/
/* No need to define a copy-assignment operator; one is implicitly
defined */
/* No need to define a destructor; one is implicitly defined */
};

C c1;
C c2;
c1 += c2; /* Damn! */

I've said all that needs to be said with "my" "definition" above. Use it
or don't. "No skin off of my nose". *I* didn't make the definition, the
language creators did. Take it up with them.

 

[Jon]

Jon, you're so wrong that people who are merely massively in error
look to you for consolation.
You're so wrong that the people of the planet Wrong have rung to say
that they don't know you.
You're so wrong that somewhere in Paris, there is an aluminium
simulacrum of you; it is the SI unit of being wrong.

Okie dokie.

 

[Seebs]

Jon, you're so wrong that people who are merely massively in error
look to you for consolation.
You're so wrong that the people of the planet Wrong have rung to say
that they don't know you.
You're so wrong that somewhere in Paris, there is an aluminium
simulacrum of you; it is the SI unit of being wrong.

The term is "fractally wrong":

http://www.alphadictionary.com/blog/?p=200

"The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of
resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong
person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you
zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that
part is just as wrong as the whole worldview."

We get a fair number of examples of them around here.

-s

 

[Keith Thompson]

Jon, you're so wrong that people who are merely massively in error
look to you for consolation.
You're so wrong that the people of the planet Wrong have rung to say
that they don't know you.
You're so wrong that somewhere in Paris, there is an aluminium
simulacrum of you; it is the SI unit of being wrong.

Martin, please take this out of comp.lang.c. (I suspect the readers
of comp.lang.c++ aren't interested either, but I won't presume to
speak for them.)

You are feeding a troll, and thereby acting like one yourself.

 

[red floyd]

Jon, you're so wrong that people who are merely massively in error
look to you for consolation.
You're so wrong that the people of the planet Wrong have rung to say
that they don't know you.
You're so wrong that somewhere in Paris, there is an aluminium
simulacrum of you; it is the SI unit of being wrong.

Obligatory XKCD.

http://xkcd.com/386/

 

[Malcolm McLean]

class C
{
    /* No need to define a default constructor; one is implicitly
defined */
    /* No need to define a copy constructor; one is implicitly defined
*/
    /* No need to define a copy-assignment operator; one is implicitly
defined */
    /* No need to define a destructor; one is implicitly defined */

};

C c1;
C c2;
c1 += c2; /* Damn! */

One annoying feature is that += isn't by default equivalent to x = x +
c.
Another more deep-seated problem, which C shares, is that there is no
concept of "scalar". So as you add types you end up with N^2
requirements for arithemetical-type functions.

However you wouldn't expect arithmetical operators by default. They
don't always makes sense.

 

[Noob]

Obligatory XKCD.

http://xkcd.com/386/

One of my all-time favorites. (Because it's so true.)

 

[James]

[...]

You seem quite autistic. There is help for that FYI.

You seem like a full blown as#hole. Sorry, but there is no help for that
particular problem...

 

[Jon]

[...]

You seem quite autistic. There is help for that FYI.

You seem like a full blown as#hole. Sorry, but there is no help for
that particular problem...

Waaaaaaaaaaank! You and your boys keep tuggin' 'em together.

 

[Seebs]

Who is Keith Thompson?

Keith is one of the resident experts on C. The person you were responding
to is a troll who posts nothing but complaints about how people who know C
aren't enough like him. I recommend you killfile "Richard", if you actually
want to read about C. If you're interested in pointless internet drama,
though, he's your guy.

-s

 

[Keith Thompson]

Who is Keith Thompson?

I am either Keith Thompson or Spartacus.

 

[lawrence.jones]

I am either Keith Thompson or Spartacus.

*I* am Spartacus!