D
David B. Held
Greg Comeau said:
Oh, is it case-sensitive? Isn't it lovely how FAT[32] does that to
your thinking?
Dave
Oh, is it case-sensitive? Isn't it lovely how FAT[32] does that to
your thinking?
Dave
A
Alexander Terekhov
David B. Held said:
Punch cards and original typewriters is the way to go. Back to roots,
so to speak. All day shouting.
regards,
alexander.
A
Attila Feher
The_Sage wrote:
[SNIP]
Look at Chapter 28 and let me know what do you see there about the main
function. Unless you do so, I am not going to give you any answer.
[SNIP]
Look at Chapter 28 and let me know what do you see there about the main
function. Unless you do so, I am not going to give you any answer.
A
Attila Feher
The_Sage wrote:
[SMIP]
Post what Chapter 28 of the standard says about the main function or get
lost.
[SMIP]
Post what Chapter 28 of the standard says about the main function or get
lost.
G
Greg Comeau
Why of course
G
Greg Comeau
I just shined up my little wire-wrapping screwdriver. I'm ready.
A
Attila Feher
Beth said:
I have not been rude to you so I have nothing to apologize for. You seem to
be overly sensitive. And you know I was thaught to make lemonade if I get a
lemon. So since The Rage would not go away anyways (and he has a US ISP
where abuse reports go to /dev/null) I had fun with him. But unlike you, I
have posted when there was movement in this thread. And I have sort of
stopped. I might try to force him to quote Chapter 28, but it seems he
ignores every request that he should prove his point, so let's see. I gave
it s try today again. Unless I see him paying nay attention I will simply
ignore him - and tell him so. I mean ignore only up to the point that if I
have time and see him doing name calling I will possibly make his ISP happy
by forwarding those abusive posts to them... but even that is unlikely.
As for you. You have been very friendly in this thread, but you
- seem to be posessed by this whole The Sage figure (let it go!)
- you give me the feeling sometimes that you are whining
- you show frustration and insecurity - in public
You support The Sage morethan you can imagine. His goal is not to win a
debate or even to debate but to make you (and others) miserable. And your
posts, their sheer length and your tone shows that you *are* indeed
miserable. Let is go. He is a j*rk and he is not worth of your attention,
unless he can make you laugh. Another thing what he is going for is to make
turbulence and make others fight each other. So you just work for him with
posts like the above.
I suggest to you to get over your fixation with The Sage. Tell him he is a
clueless annoyance and you are going to ignore him from now on. And do it.
If he tries to mix up a thread important to you just post there a *brief*
reminder for the others:
The Sage is a clueless troll. Do not engage in any conversation with him,
unless you want to laugh as he make a complete fool of himself. But please
remember that you doing might attract the attention of others and things can
go out of hand.
A
Attila Feher
Beth said:
I am not fighting him. If you did know the C++ standard you would know what
is in Chapter 28 of the ISO standard. Let's see if clueless The Sage knows
it. I cannot tell more.
A
Attila Feher
Greg Comeau wrote:
[SNIP]
Absolutely OT:
Have you ever soldered a transistor? I mean *inside* the housing. The
"leg" onto the semiconductor. I did it. With a Russian transistor. I have
then measured it against untouched ones, even the characteristics did not
change! That is what I call robust! (The leg was broken off the
semiconductor, due to "cold soldering".)
[SNIP]
Absolutely OT:
Have you ever soldered a transistor? I mean *inside* the housing. The
"leg" onto the semiconductor. I did it. With a Russian transistor. I have
then measured it against untouched ones, even the characteristics did not
change!
That is what I call robust! (The leg was broken off thesemiconductor, due to "cold soldering".)
A
Attila Feher
Alexander said:
And all having Z80 should retire...
A
Attila Feher
Beth said:
I did not tell you rudely to piss off, but if you push me enough I will.
You are overly sensitive.
A
Attila Feher
Beth said:
Stop whining!
A
Attila Feher
Beth said:
I don't.
Beth! Get a life! You are fixated on this topic. Forget The Sage and just
understand that this is not your personal crusade or even enything remotely
important in your life. You have been posting here 3 pages (on an 1600x1200
monitor) essays about The Sage. At a time when he was not posting and
neither was anyone else. I could have asked you rudely, I did not. But
now - since you have asked for it - I do: please *stop whining*.
A
Attila Feher
Beth said:
Get a life!
A
Alexander Terekhov
Attila said:Alexander said:
And all having Z80 should retire...
Why so? Void aside for a moment, thread
/(_)exit() is nothing but:template<typename T>
void thread_exit(T value) {
assert(std::thread_self().can_exit_with<T>());
throw thread_exit_value(value);
}
IOW, you don't need MULTIPLE threads for T main_thread(/*...*/). Well,
you'll "probably" use *void* (for T) if you don't have any other thread
that can JOIN initial/main thread, however. Void "main()" rules and int
main() sucks (and is only good to wastefully consume a terribly growing
amount of energy and net bandwidth; it's one of the main "contributors"
to the global warming, you know)
regards,
alexander.
A
Attila Feher
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[SNIP]
Why assert? This can be decided compile time.
I see no connection between the type of the exit code and the number of
threads.
Nope. That is when I eat beans.
[SNIP]
Why so? Void aside for a moment, thread
template<typename T>
void thread_exit(T value) {
assert(std::thread_self().can_exit_with<T>());
throw thread_exit_value(value);
}
Why assert? This can be decided compile time.
I see no connection between the type of the exit code and the number of
threads.
Nope. That is when I eat beans.
A
Andrew Koenig
Additional evidence from the C++ standard...
Subclause 6.6.3, paragraph 2:
A return statement with an expression of non-void type
can be used only in functions returning a value; the value
of the expression is returned to the caller of the function.
Subclause 3.6.1, paragraph 5:
If control reaches the end of main without encountering a
return statement, the effect is that of executing
return 0;
Together, these two paragraphs imply that even if an implementation
were to allow "void main", such an implementation would have to require
that the main function have an explicit return statement. Because
3.6.1, paragraph 5 says that if
void main() { }
were legal, it would have to mean the same as
void main() { return 0; }
and subclause 6.6.3, paragraph 2 prohibits "return 0;" from appearing
in a function that is defined to return void.
Subclause 6.6.3, paragraph 2:
A return statement with an expression of non-void type
can be used only in functions returning a value; the value
of the expression is returned to the caller of the function.
Subclause 3.6.1, paragraph 5:
If control reaches the end of main without encountering a
return statement, the effect is that of executing
return 0;
Together, these two paragraphs imply that even if an implementation
were to allow "void main", such an implementation would have to require
that the main function have an explicit return statement. Because
3.6.1, paragraph 5 says that if
void main() { }
were legal, it would have to mean the same as
void main() { return 0; }
and subclause 6.6.3, paragraph 2 prohibits "return 0;" from appearing
in a function that is defined to return void.
B
Beth
Attila said:
The person who is offended defines whether offence was caused, not the
offender...okay, if it was not intentionally, then I offer you my
apologies for perhaps over-reacting in my response...but this was the
impression you gave me by repeating unnecessarily the same highly
abrupt post...
Perhaps a little in this case, so apologies for that...but you hardly
make a great case for your side when you consider me "over sensitive"
yet persist in the same unthinking abrupt manner...that makes any
upset you cause _delibrate_ because you are clearly aware that I might
not take this method of response in good spirit but yet you persist to
do it, even now...
Oh, alright...if you insist, you are flawlessly perfect and I was
utterly foolish and "evil" for trying to help you lot out, if
possible...
I came in peace...but, hey, if the policy's "shoot to kill" then,
fine, I'll play dead if that suits you...this is, in fact, what's got
me "overly sensitive"...I came in peace, genuinely intent on helping
you lot out in good Faith and I get it ungracefully thrown back in my
face, seemingly for no good reason that I can see...that, to my mind,
is incredibly _rude_...
I'm hardly over sensitive when I have regular dealings with idiots
like the Sage...but your response was slightly different...unlike the
Sage, _YOU_ clearly should know better...I had _respect_ for you and
thought you were a reasonable person...thus, when you _delibrately_
are rude, you're in a different class...Sage doesn't know better, _you
should_...that's why when you act in this way, it actualy is
upsetting...it's not really "overly sensitive"...it's being sensitive
to those who are _serious_ and _delibrate_ in their rudeness because
they clearly know far, far better that when they act like someone like
the Sage, it's a whole different class...it's "overly sensitive", it's
that I expected a much higher standard from you than from an idiot
like the Sage...
thread.
Okay, you haven't noticed that my postings are all grouped together in
time with around a week "gap" in the middle...hint: I'm not reading
this thread continuously and am posting when I have time to do
so...thus, I have to respond all in one go like this, as I simply was
not even reading the thread in the intervening time...
Ironic, really...you said "get a life!"...and, well, yes, that's
exactly why there was such a delay between postings...in the meantime,
I _was_ doing other things...
Okay, fine...
Note, I know that, on Usenet, you're sort of forced onto your toes at
all times because there are flames everywhere...but, sorry, your
mistake - which is what upset - was that you treated me as though less
than human and not deserving of a reasonable, sensible reply when I
had done nothing to you to justify such a response...
unlikely.
Okay, a sensible policy...really, I was only basically trying to tell
you that in my experience of Sage's postings that I'd found out that
this is the best policy and thought to simply tell you all, as it
might help you all...
I got upset simply because I was trying to _help_...nothing more...and
then got treated with a far more abrupt and rude response than, heck,
even the Sage gets...
Untrue; I posted originally only to stress to _ignore_ him...I then
did not post for over a week to this thread...when I return, I find
your unwarranted responses - and I deemed them "unwarranted" and
"upsetting" for the exact reason you've just stated...I _was_ being
very friendly and trying to _help_ and nothing more, that snapping
rudely was completely unjustified in my eyes...and I will tolerate
many, many things but I do _DEMAND_ fair treatment...nothing
more...just fair treatment, that you seemed to not want to give me,
though I gave it to you unreservedly prior to that - so I responded
with a second batch of posts to respond to these accusations and
general nastiness that I believed that I'd done absolutely nothing to
warrant you doing to me...
Hardly "possessed"...but, if you want to dispute that point, then we
can, of course, simply count up the amount of responses in this
thread...and then, as I say, note that all my posts are "clumped" in
two or three "groups"...which just represents that I was not totally
glued to this thread...again, hardly "possessed"...
But I can see how you could possibly have got the wrong idea when you
saw a number of posts from me appear...but, you see, I was not
constantly here in this thread throughout its life that I was
responding to the thread when I actually had the time to do so...it
was not delibrate "flooding" of the thread but that because I was here
throughout it all but merely "catching up" every time I got time to do
so, it was all "clumped" together...rather than, say, a post or two a
day or something for a week, you got all 7 to 14 posts in one go...
Although, I could see how if you didn't notice that this was how
things were happening that you might think I was "flooding"...plus,
also, I can be highly verbose and _am_ able to spit out literally 100s
of KBs of plain text post every day...I'm reknown in the ASM groups
for being able to do this...so, also, I can see that you think I might
have been being "extreme" in my postings...but, well, if you see what
I'm like in the ASM groups or ask the ASM people here, you'll realise
that I was being short, restrained and making only a few
posts...hence, what others consider "flooding" just isn't so to me
because I'm just generally able to produce and receive quite a lot of
text that, sorry, I forgot to hold back even more...the ASM guys are
used to this from me but you lot aren't...I tried to restrain it all a
bit but, well, obviously not enough for your tastes...
No, I merely protest when I find things to be wrong...I don't hide
away in a corner...this is how I am...
Yes; And I'll show feelings and emotions and admit my mistakes and so
forth in public too...
This might take some getting used to because, usually, people switch
into "robot mode" in public and insist on being quite the opposite...I
don't...I believe that, in public, there is no lesser incentive
whatsoever in being honest about things than in private (in fact,
there are more people involved, thus, on strict numerical grounds,
there could even be a claim for _more_ honesty in public, perhaps
...So, yes, I will show these things and do not consider that to be in
any "wrong" or "weak" or anything...I have my frustrations, I have my
insecurities, I have my emotions, I have my opinions...in my opinion,
it would be _dishonest_ to try to pretend otherwise...it's part of
being human and I'm not ashamed to be human and show that I am
human...
That is an unusual thing in public forums, perhaps...but I make no
apologies for it...to be anything otherwise, would be to present to
you a dishonest face of who I am...I'm not perfect...just like
everyone else on Usenet...I'm just not afraid to sometimes hold up my
hands and say "yup, that's me!"...
Don't you see the little smiley faces at the end of my sentences and
in my signature
Oh, don't draw any conclusions from the length...really, ask the
people from the ASM groups about that one...I often produce well over
50KB of plain text without batting an eyelid...I am a verbose person
who likes to talk over a subject fully and present my thinking and my
reasoning for the things I say too...
As for my tone, I merely thought it was cautionary at that
point...but, okay, perhaps you somehow picked up "miserable" from
it...charming, I must say...but, well, some people can naturally see
through things and pick up underlying currents...I do, on occasion,
get miserable about things...show me someone who doesn't and I'll show
you a liar...but if you picked this up, it had nothing to do with Sage
but was just more "general misery" unrelated to that...also, merely
something temporary...getting out of bed on the wrong side that day,
you know? Nothing of any great concern...
Please, review the postings again...I was not bothering to respond to
Sage at all...and I assure you, the only time I ever do is just to
poke fun at him and nothing else...
My attention was not on him but on others who are not aware of what he
is like, in an attempt to make it clear so as not to see anyone made
upset...for instance, as you saw and mentioned, he has absolutely no
qualms about outrightly insulting you with, sometimes, grossly
offensive language...
My sole intent was to prevent such upset and to perhaps help to bring
this thread to a swift conclusions (because, as you now gather,
there's no point pursuing it at all)...my attentions were NOT on the
Sage _whatsoever_...my attentions were completely on trying to prevent
the damage that he wreaks on others wherever he tramples...I was
attempting to exercise "damage limitation" around the Sage as he
attempted to cause it, solely for the benefit of others...myself, I
know what he's like and how to deal with him...
Though I provoke him to respond in saying this, have you noticed that
he generally avoids ever responding to me? Even if I outrightly
challenge him, he resists...trust me, I know how to kick his arse any
day of the week...all I was trying to do was pass on that information
so that he couldn't get a foothold at all...
Not really; Your response was the one that seemed to be picking up
annoyance at Sage and then incorrectly aiming it at me...perhaps
because I just happened to be the next post after him you responded to
and were still stuck in "how to deal with the Sage" mode...I ain't
responded to the Sage - but to poke fun - and he doesn't respond to
me...I've seen him do this for over a year intermittently...his tricks
have no effect on me anymore...I think, though it was entirely
unintentional that I apologise for snapping at you for it, it was you
that accidentally picked up some of the way to treat the Sage and then
accidentally and unintentionally it got carried through into your
responses to me...
Hey, no sweat...I've done that once or twice myself...you know, should
have taken a breather from writing one post to someone annoying before
replying to someone reasonable, as you can sometimes accidentally
transfer your bad mood from one post into another unintentionally
because it hasn't completely worn off...now I see that that's what
probably happened, I apologise for myself snapping at you there
because now I see what probably happened...and it wasn't meant to be
abrupt and rude, it was just unintentionally carrying some of that
from talking to Sage just prior...fair enough...
Actually, you _TOTALLY_ describe what I was doing...all except the
"brief" part...and everyone on the ASM groups will probably be
giggling here, as they know I'm entirely incapable of "brief", even
when I try really hard to do so...
There is NO fixation with the Sage...I've not responded to him - but
to poke fun - and he never really bothers responding to me for a long
while now because he knows he can't get at me anymore...I don't even
bother to tell him he's a clueless annoyance, he already knows...and I
_do_ ignore him...but when I saw that he could start his rampage and
damage elsewhere, I thought I would, as you say, post a reminder to
others to keep him from catching out others who are not aware of what
he's like...
That was exactly what I was doing...the only bit that's different is
that, well, I'm a verbose person...I don't do "brief"...and that's not
"miserable" or anything...I'm just a Lover of language and don't find
having to write words some terrible, evil chore like some people
do...I like to talk and I am verbose...and I think this is the real
problem here...you're not used to me being like that...I'm not used to
people who don't know about this "quirk" of mine because it's a
running gag in the ASM groups that there's just no such thing as a
"concise" post from me
Beth
B
Beth
Attila said:
And this is another example of the "civility" you demonstrate...
Beth
B
Beth
David said:
Oh...you know, I never thought of that...okay, perhaps I was slightly
too harsh there, then...being old enough to know better but still
young enough to be a right royal pain in the butt myself at times, I
should have thought about that and not dived in so quickly..."fools
rush in" and all that...oops...
Beth