The 64bit future

[Ben Bacarisse]

Ben Bacarisse said:


Mine does, not my problem, and I'm not.

Just a suggestion for a more peaceful group: get an edition that also
includes the less incendiary meaning!

 

[J. F. Lemaire]

I suspect others will draw their own conclusions on that topic. Not
one of the online dictionaries has it in the form you have
represented, nor does my Collins.

Not that I care one way or the other, but you might want to look up 'to
give the lie to' at http://www.dict.org.

JFL

 

[Keith Thompson]

Just a suggestion for a more peaceful group: get an edition that also
includes the less incendiary meaning!

Another suggestion: Don't throw the word "lie" around unnecessarily.
Someone who's not familiar with the phrase "give the lie to" (such as
a non-native English speaker) might quite reasonably assume that
someone is being accused of lying, i.e., of making deliberately false
statements.

 

[CBFalconer]

Quite possibly, but since Richard is quite definitely a native
english speaker, the point is moot.

However c.l.c, and Usenet, are not private, but are public places.
Lots of non-native-English speakers can read, and possibly comment
on, these exchanges.

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

I suspect others will draw their own conclusions on that topic. Not
one of the online dictionaries has it in the form you have
represented, nor does my Collins.

Oh, now that's unwarranted. The online edition of the dictionary
doesn't have that quote but there must be dozens of editions and
versions that go by the name "Chambers". The only reasonable
conclusion to draw is that Richard was misinformed by his dictionary.
It happens. If it happens often, you change your source of
information.

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

I think it has at least as much to do w/ sizeof (long) == sizeof (void *).

That is exactly the case for I32LP64. That Microsoft chose IL32LLP64
shows that sizeof(int)==sizeof(long) is a much more common assumption
for Win32 application code.

The Win32 API is littered w/ superfluous typedefs for which the only
[plausibly] meaningful purpose is to flaunt the conflations.

There weren't that many typedefs in Win16; the transition to Win32 is
when most of them appeared, and as much as I hate to admit it, they're
one of the reasons that the transition to Win64 is much less painful.
Applications just require recompiling with few, if any, changes if the
Win32 apps were written using the correct typedefs in the first place.

I do disagree with Microsoft's use of ALL CAPS for typedefs and overuse
of Hungarian notation on style grounds, but at least they're consistent
and, when used properly, it all works as designed. That's more than one
can say for a lot of APIs I deal with.

S

 

[Guest]

Mark McIntyre said:

[something like "behaving like a troll"]

There isn't really a significant difference between the two claims.
After all, when one is behaving trollishly, one is being a troll.
So your objection is meaningless.

Yes there is. If nearly all of someone's output is troll-like
then they can be classed as a troll. If only some of, or
a minority of, someone's output is troll-like then they
need not be classed as a troll, but merely have episodes of troll-like
behaviour.

And "troll-like" can be defined as posting merely to stir up
a reaction rather than making a productive contribution.

It was not easy to refrain from making the obvious retort, but I've
succeeded.

take a chill pill. Both of you.

 

[Guest]

On 03/05/09 01:55, Richard Heathfield wrote:

I strongly suspect you have misquoted that. Chambers wouldn't be so
sloppy as to use the word "them" in relation to "something".

"Chambers 20th Century Dictionary" 1983

"... <bold>give the lie to</bold> to charge with lying; to prove
false"


<snip>

 

[Richard Bos]

On 03/05/09 00:13, Richard Heathfield wrote:
(You know something? Whenever

Perhaps its because you ask for proof of things which nobody claimed you
said, as above, and thereby divert attention while claiming some sort of
moral high ground that isn't due to you?

Sorry, I'm too long long in the tooth to walk into your school debating
society traps.

ITYF that it's not school, it's scholastics, unfortunately.

Richard

 

[Richard Bos]

Another suggestion: Don't throw the word "lie" around unnecessarily.
Someone who's not familiar with the phrase "give the lie to" (such as
a non-native English speaker) might quite reasonably assume that
someone is being accused of lying, i.e., of making deliberately false
statements.

Mark and Richard live on the same island, which _invented_ the damn
language for feck's sake, and any of us furrin bastards who take such a
phrase the wrong way should be grateful to learn something new. Come
_on_, guys, we're all willing to at least try and learn to read
well-written idiomatic C, why wouldn't we do the same for English?

Richard

 

[Keith Thompson]

Mark and Richard live on the same island, which _invented_ the damn
language for feck's sake, and any of us furrin bastards who take such a
phrase the wrong way should be grateful to learn something new. Come
_on_, guys, we're all willing to at least try and learn to read
well-written idiomatic C, why wouldn't we do the same for English?

There's an on-line search site for Chamber's Dictionary, at
<http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main>.
Search for "lie" yields:

[...]
give the lie to someone or something
1 originally to accuse them of lying.
2 now to show (a statement, etc) to be false.
[...]

Assuming that "give the lie to" is an accusation of dishonesty may be
incorrect, but it's not an entirely unreasonable assumption. Perhaps
one party was unaware of the second meaning, and another party was
unaware of the first.

I decline to take sides in any debate; I'm merely providing additional
information.

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

Mark and Richard live on the same island, which _invented_ the damn
language for feck's sake, and any of us furrin bastards who take such a
phrase the wrong way should be grateful to learn something new. Come
_on_, guys, we're all willing to at least try and learn to read
well-written idiomatic C, why wouldn't we do the same for English?

There's an on-line search site for Chamber's Dictionary, at
<http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main>.
Search for "lie" yields:

[...]
give the lie to someone or something
1 originally to accuse them of lying.
2 now to show (a statement, etc) to be false.
[...]

Assuming that "give the lie to" is an accusation of dishonesty may be
incorrect, but it's not an entirely unreasonable assumption.

I general yes, but for a native speaker of English I find it odd. It
would mean the speaker is poorly informed or that he though Mark was
using obsolete language or at least using it incorrectly.

The reason for this last remark is the distinction made by all
dictionaries I've looked at between "give the lie to someone" and
"... to something". The original remark was about giving the lie to
an assertion, which can never have the first meaning. Richard's
dictionary would appear be so poor that is does not have the modern
meaning and it would appear to conflate the two meanings from the
quote he gave. Of course, the quote might have been incomplete but
then he'd be properly informed of the meaning would he not?

Perhaps
one party was unaware of the second meaning, and another party was
unaware of the first.

That has to be the conclusion, though Mark can be forgiven for missing
the first since it can't apply to phrase he wrote and it is obsolete
to the point of being excluded from many quality references (see
below).

I decline to take sides in any debate; I'm merely providing additional
information.

In the spirit of more information, some sources don't bother with the
obsolete meaning any more. For example, the The Oxford Dictionary of
Idioms has:

give the lie to something serve to show that something seemingly
apparent or previously stated or believed is not true.

which is how I think most English speakers take the phrase. (And,
yes, the listing is punctuated like that on the page I've got. Sorry,
I can't give a link since it is a subscription service.)

ask.oxford.com gives me:

PHRASES *give the lie to* serve to show that (something assumed to
be true) is not true.

(*s mark BOLD in the entry) with no other meaning.

Brewer's Concise Dictionary of Phrase and Fable has:

To give the lie to. To show that such a statement is false; to
belie.

Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms has:

give the lie to sth /formal/
to show that something is not true

(http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=lie*1+0&dict=I).

 

[Richard Bos]

OTOH, that breaks the massive base of code (written on ILP32 systems)
that assumes sizeof(int)==sizeof(long).

Myeah. Either case is catering to code that is _already_ broken, though.

Richard

 

[Richard Bos]

(*but not enough to buy it. I already have Collins and somewhere a SOED
that I really can't be bothered to dig out of whichever cabinet the wife
has it hidden in. )

Send her to get it. Then, to teach her never to hide such a treasure
again, stuff her in the hole she put it in - it'll be quite large enough


Richard

 

[Keith Thompson]

Myeah. Either case is catering to code that is _already_ broken, though.

For certain values of "broken". In many cases, the code is merely
non-portable, and was written to depend on guarantees that were made
by the implementation for which it was written.

But yes, usually such dependences are unnecessary, and we'd all be
better off if people wrote more portable code in the first place.