lamda-optimization

[Bonita Montero]

I've just checked:

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

int main()
{
int i, j, k;
auto f = [&]() -> int
{
return i + j + k;
};
cout << sizeof f << endl;
}

Can anyone tell me whether the lambda has three pointers (24 bytes
on 64 bit systems) instead of just one pointer inside the stack-frame,
which could be an easy optimization ?

[Öö Tiib]

C++ standard does not require any optimizations there so the
question is about quality of implementation (QOI). QOI questions do
not make sense without mentioning implementation name and
version.

I suspect most compilers are turning your program into equivalent of

int main() { std::cout << 42 << std::endl; }

The 42 there being unlikely but valid by standard.
Even if you used it then most compilers would probably inline call of it
and so the number would be again meaningless.

[Bonita Montero]

>> I've just checked:
>>
>> #include <iostream>
>>
>> using namespace std;
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> int i, j, k;
>> auto f = [&]() -> int
>> {
>> return i + j + k;
>> };
>> cout << sizeof f << endl;
>> }
>>
>> Can anyone tell me whether the lambda has three pointers (24 bytes
>> on 64 bit systems) instead of just one pointer inside the stack-frame,
>> which could be an easy optimization ?

> C++ standard does not require any optimizations there so the
> question is about quality of implementation (QOI). QOI questions
> do not make sense without mentioning implementation name and
> version.
> I suspect most compilers are turning your program into equivalent of
> int main() { std::cout << 42 << std::endl; }

I think you don't understand what I'm asking for.

> The 42 there being unlikely but valid by standard.

No, 24.
And my question is why the compiler doesn't do the simple
optimization of storing just a single pointer inside the
stackframe inside the lambda-object. That would result in
less memory-accesses and it would save registers.

[Real Troll]

Yes it is 24 on 64 bit machine; Compiled with VS2019 using

> C:\Users\*******\Documents\cmdLine\cpp>cl /EHsc lambda01.cpp
> Microsoft (R) C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 19.28.29915 for x64
> Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

German Manager helped by a German player won the Champions League for Chelsea ( a UK team) in Portugal!!! How wonderful it is.

[Bonita Montero]

> Yes it is 24 on 64 bit machine; Compiled with VS2019 using
>> C:\Users\*******\Documents\cmdLine\cpp>cl /EHsc lambda01.cpp

It isn't different with -Ox, but it could have been.

[David Brown]

The question doesn't really make sense.

When optimising, a compiler will not generate anything for any of the
variables or the lambda.

When looking at this kind of thing, I like to use the online compiler at
<https://godbolt.org> and look at the assembly. This is easier if you
don't try to generate printed output:


int foo() {
int i, j, k;

auto f = [&]() {

return i + j + k;
};

return sizeof(f);
}

gcc generates:

foo():
movl $24, %eax
ret

So the compiler is trying to give you the size of storage it would need
in general for a lambda that took three references. But since the
optimised lambda is entirely removed, it is not the actual size of "f"
in the optimised code.

AFAIK the standard doesn't say anything about what size lambdas should
be, or anything else about their types. But I would guess that
compilers try to give consistent results for the sizeof of a lambda
regardless of the optimisation or details of the implementation.

[Bonita Montero]

> So the compiler is trying to give you the size of storage it would need
> in general for a lambda that took three references. But since the
> optimised lambda is entirely removed, it is not the actual size of "f"
> in the optimised code.

The compiler could also give the size of an optimized lambda.

Consider this:

#include <iostream>
#include <functional>

using namespace std;

int main()
{

int i = 123, j = 456, k = 789;

auto f = [&]() -> int
{
return i + j + k;
};

function<int()> ff = f;
function<int()> *volatile pFf = &ff;
cout << sizeof f << " " << (*pFf)() << endl;
}

I pack f into a function<> and then I assign the address to a volatile
pointer to prevent any optimizations on calling the function-object.
So according to what you suggesst the compiler would have the chance
to optimize the three references - but it doesn't.

[Öö Tiib]

On Sunday, 30 May 2021 at 21:46:22 UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote:
> > So the compiler is trying to give you the size of storage it would need
> > in general for a lambda that took three references. But since the
> > optimised lambda is entirely removed, it is not the actual size of "f"
> > in the optimised code.
> The compiler could also give the size of an optimized lambda.
>
> Consider this:
>
> #include <iostream>
> #include <functional>
> using namespace std;
>
> int main()
> {
> int i = 123, j = 456, k = 789;
> auto f = [&]() -> int
> {
> return i + j + k;
> };
> function<int()> ff = f;
> function<int()> *volatile pFf = &ff;
> cout << sizeof f << " " << (*pFf)() << endl;
> }

Looks like horrible pile of garbage that still does nothing.

> I pack f into a function<> and then I assign the address to a volatile
> pointer to prevent any optimizations on calling the function-object.
> So according to what you suggesst the compiler would have the chance
> to optimize the three references - but it doesn't.

If some optimization in some compiler of some feature is missing and
so your resulting program is slow then you should write less garbage
code that compiler can't optimize. Or you can take source code of
compiler, implement the optimization you need and put up a pull
request.

[Bonita Montero]

You're so ultimately stupid.

[Marcel Mueller]

Am 30.05.21 um 13:18 schrieb Bonita Montero:

> #include <iostream>
>
> using namespace std;
>
> int main()
> {
>     int i, j, k;
>     auto f = [&]() -> int
>     {
>         return i + j + k;
>     };
>     cout << sizeof f << endl;
> }
>
> Can anyone tell me whether the lambda has three pointers (24 bytes
> on 64 bit systems) instead of just one pointer inside the stack-frame,

A generic function pointer typically take 3 machine size words to
support all cases of polymorphism. Note that a lambda with closures is
in fact equivalent to a class with a (virtual) interface function with
the lambda signature. So we are talking about a /member function
pointer/ in general. Due to multiple inheritance and implicit upcasts
this is not simply a pointer to code.

> which could be an easy optimization ?

There is nothing you can do. The compiler on the other side is not
required to allocate the storage unless it is really needed.


Marcel

[Bonita Montero]

> A generic function pointer typically take 3 machine size words to
> support all cases of polymorphism. Note that a lambda with closures is
> in fact equivalent to a class with a (virtual) interface function with
> the lambda signature. So we are talking about a /member function
> pointer/ in general. Due to multiple inheritance and implicit upcasts
> this is not simply a pointer to code.

The three pointers have a fixed relationship to each other so that the
compiler could store a single pointer somewhere inside the stackframe
and address the three variables as [reg+a], [reg+b] and [reg+c].

[Marcel Mueller]

Am 31.05.21 um 18:50 schrieb Bonita Montero:
[Lambda pointer]

> The three pointers have a fixed relationship to each other so that the
> compiler could store a single pointer somewhere inside the stackframe
> and address the three variables as [reg+a], [reg+b] and [reg+c].

No they have not. You may assign any other function pointer to the
function type f later.


Marcel

[red floyd]

On 5/30/2021 9:16 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> You're so ultimately stupid.

Hint: an ad hominem reply means you have lost the debate

[Bonita Montero]

>> The three pointers have a fixed relationship to each other so that the
>> compiler could store a single pointer somewhere inside the stackframe
>> and address the three variables as [reg+a], [reg+b] and [reg+c].

> No they have not. You may assign any other function pointer to the
> function type f later.

Of course they have because the stack has a fixed layout. And even
more: you may put _no_ pointer inside the lambda-object since it has
fixed place inside the stack and you could address all other objects
at relative addresses to that address.

[Bonita Montero]

>> You're so ultimately stupid.

> Hint:  an ad hominem reply means you have lost the debate

No, it means it doesn't make sense do debate sinnce the
person you're discussing with doesn't understand anything.

[Juha Nieminen]

That's not an ad hominem. Insulting someone is not an ad hominem. That's
a surprisingly (and sadly) common misconception.

An ad hominem argument is arguing against the claim made by someone by
alluding to something objectionable about that person, which has nothing
to do with the claim. Like, for example, "he has committed this heinous
crime, therefore what he's claiming about this mathematical proof is
not to be trusted" (not with those exact words, of course, but as the
fundamental idea). In the current day and age perhaps even more commonly
"he holds these political beliefs, therefore what he's saying (about
this thing completely unrelated to politics) is not to be trusted".

"An attack to the person" does not mean "being aggressive towards the
person (eg. with insults or swearwords)". It means "trying to discredit
what the person is saying by discrediting the reputation of the person".

"Argumentum ad hominem" could, perhaps, be more accurately translated
as "argument by attacking the reputation of the person".

[Ben Bacarisse]

Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> writes:

> "An attack to the person" does not mean "being aggressive towards the
> person (eg. with insults or swearwords)". It means "trying to discredit
> what the person is saying by discrediting the reputation of the person".
>
> "Argumentum ad hominem" could, perhaps, be more accurately translated
> as "argument by attacking the reputation of the person".

The attack is on the argument via the character of the person making it.

--
Ben.

[Manfred]

One of you two doesn't understand what the other is saying, sure.
The fact is that it is not the one that you think the one that is defective.

Still, it doesn't make sense to keep debating this way - at least you
got this part right.

[Bonita Montero]

> One of you two doesn't understand what the other is saying, sure.

It's all related to this:

| If some optimization in some compiler of some feature is missing and
| so your resulting program is slow then you should write less garbage
| code that compiler can't optimize. Or you can take source code of
| compiler, implement the optimization you need and put up a pull
| request.

Is this qualified arguing ?
Öö Tiib's postings are mostly nonsense.

[Öö Tiib]

I agree ... I was suggesting to not write garbage or to extend compiler
so that the useless garbage is detected and optimized out. For
someone sensible these would be constructive suggestions worth
pursuing. As these were suggested to Bonita Montero who can't
possibly do neither of those it was total nonsense.

[Bonita Montero]

> I agree ... I was suggesting to not write garbage or to extend compiler
> so that the useless garbage is detected and optimized out. For
> someone sensible these would be constructive suggestions worth
> pursuing. As these were suggested to Bonita Montero who can't
> possibly do neither of those it was total nonsense.

I didn't tell garbage. I just wanted to give the compiler the oppor-
tunity to do the optimization which David said that it wouldn't be
done because there the function wouldn't get compiled.
And I did it right by hiding the lambda behind a volatile-Pointer
so that the lambda couldn't be inline-optimized. I could have done
it also a bit simpler:

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

int main()
{

int volatile i = 123, j = 456, k = 789;

auto f = [&]() -> int
{
return i + j + k;
};

decltype(f) *volatile pFf = &f;
cout << sizeof *pFf << " " << (*pFf)() << endl;
}

And the result is the same.
Why is this garbage ?

[MrSpoo...@6uikovuenojv.gov.uk]

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 07:10:19 +0000 (UTC)
Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>red floyd <no.spa...@its.invalid> wrote:
>> On 5/30/2021 9:16 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> You're so ultimately stupid.
>>
>> Hint: an ad hominem reply means you have lost the debate
>
>That's not an ad hominem. Insulting someone is not an ad hominem. That's
>a surprisingly (and sadly) common misconception.
>
>An ad hominem argument is arguing against the claim made by someone by
>alluding to something objectionable about that person, which has nothing
>to do with the claim. Like, for example, "he has committed this heinous
>crime, therefore what he's claiming about this mathematical proof is
>not to be trusted" (not with those exact words, of course, but as the
>fundamental idea). In the current day and age perhaps even more commonly
>"he holds these political beliefs, therefore what he's saying (about
>this thing completely unrelated to politics) is not to be trusted".
>
>"An attack to the person" does not mean "being aggressive towards the
>person (eg. with insults or swearwords)". It means "trying to discredit
>what the person is saying by discrediting the reputation of the person".

Calling someone stupid fits that description nicely.

[Doctor Who]

AFAIK Bonita is a woman and as such you all owe her respect.

[red floyd]

"Oo Tiib's postings are mostly nonsense" is a valid argument. Not
supported by you in the post, but a valid argument.

"You're so ultimately stupid."is attacking the person, not the
argument, and is therefore ad hominem.

[Doctor Who]

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 20:26:14 -0700, red floyd <no....@its.invalid>
wrote:

>On 6/1/21 6:24 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> One of you two doesn't understand what the other is saying, sure.
>>
>> It's all related to this:
>>
>> | If some optimization in some compiler of some feature is missing and
>> | so your resulting program is slow then you should write less garbage
>> | code that compiler can't optimize. Or you can take source code of
>> | compiler, implement the optimization you need and put up a pull
>> | request.
>>
>> Is this qualified arguing ?

>> 嘱 Tiib's postings are mostly nonsense.

>
>"Oo Tiib's postings are mostly nonsense" is a valid argument. Not
>supported by you in the post, but a valid argument.
>
>"You're so ultimately stupid."is attacking the person, not the
>argument, and is therefore ad hominem.

I can understand that the truth hurts, but this does not relieve us
from the duty of respecting woman.

[James Kuyper]

On 6/1/21 11:10 PM, Doctor Who wrote:
...

> AFAIK Bonita is a woman and as such you all owe her respect.

That's a fairly sexist attitude. Respect is something that must be
earned, not something that you're automatically entitled to by reason of
your gender or your position. Bonita has rather spectacularly failed to
earn my respect, which I'm quite certain doesn't bother her in the least.

[Juha Nieminen]

MrSpoo...@6uikovuenojv.gov.uk wrote:
>>"An attack to the person" does not mean "being aggressive towards the
>>person (eg. with insults or swearwords)". It means "trying to discredit
>>what the person is saying by discrediting the reputation of the person".
>
> Calling someone stupid fits that description nicely.

Not really, because insulting someone is not making claims to try to
hurt the reputation of the person and make other people turn against
that person, usually by alluding to unrelated objectionable actions
or beliefs (such as, for example, political beliefs). It's trying to
erode the credibility of the person by accusing the person of having
done or said something objectionable (usually completely unrelated
to the discussion at hand).

[Doctor Who]

disagreeing totally. Respect is due to woman by virtue of ethics and
civilization.

[David Brown]

Respect is something that you are automatically entitled to by reason of
being a /person/. (Since both Dr. Who and Mr. Spock are in this thread,
that could be extended to any kind of sentient being.)

Respect for the knowledge or the value of the opinions of a person might
start at zero until it is earned.

Greater respect can then be earned, or it can be lost.

You are right that gender, position, and any other unrelated issue
should have no influence on respect.


I am confident that you are respectful to people you meet - independent
of their gender and anything else. Then the respect goes up or down
according to politeness, rudeness, knowledge, how they treat others, etc.

[Doctor Who]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 09:39:43 +0200, David Brown
<david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 02/06/2021 06:14, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 6/1/21 11:10 PM, Doctor Who wrote:
>> ...
>>> AFAIK Bonita is a woman and as such you all owe her respect.
>>
>> That's a fairly sexist attitude. Respect is something that must be
>> earned, not something that you're automatically entitled to by reason of
>> your gender or your position. Bonita has rather spectacularly failed to
>> earn my respect, which I'm quite certain doesn't bother her in the least.
>>
>
>Respect is something that you are automatically entitled to by reason of
>being a /person/. (Since both Dr. Who and Mr. Spock are in this thread,
>that could be extended to any kind of sentient being.)

you are absolutely right, respect is extended also to Vulcanians and
Time Lords.

>Respect for the knowledge or the value of the opinions of a person might
>start at zero until it is earned.
>
>Greater respect can then be earned, or it can be lost.
>
>You are right that gender, position, and any other unrelated issue
>should have no influence on respect.
>
>
>I am confident that you are respectful to people you meet - independent
>of their gender and anything else. Then the respect goes up or down
>according to politeness, rudeness, knowledge, how they treat others, etc.

I find Bonita nice, polite and exceptional programmer, thus she has my
wholehearted respect.

[Keith Thompson]

If you respect the participants in this newsgroup, consider refraining
from coming in here and lecturing us on things that are unrelated to its
topic.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.T...@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[Doctor Who]

On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 01:47:58 -0700, Keith Thompson
<Keith.S.T...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Doctor Who <d...@tardis.org> writes:
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 00:14:14 -0400, James Kuyper
>> <james...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>>On 6/1/21 11:10 PM, Doctor Who wrote:
>>>...
>>>> AFAIK Bonita is a woman and as such you all owe her respect.
>>>
>>>That's a fairly sexist attitude. Respect is something that must be
>>>earned, not something that you're automatically entitled to by reason of
>>>your gender or your position. Bonita has rather spectacularly failed to
>>>earn my respect, which I'm quite certain doesn't bother her in the least.
>>
>> disagreeing totally. Respect is due to woman by virtue of ethics and
>> civilization.
>
>If you respect the participants in this newsgroup, consider refraining
>from coming in here and lecturing us on things that are unrelated to its
>topic.

if you are not a moderator of this newsgroup please refrain from
trying to educate people on how they must behave online.

[James Kuyper]

On 6/2/21 5:49 AM, Doctor Who wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 01:47:58 -0700, Keith Thompson
> <Keith.S.T...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> if you are not a moderator of this newsgroup please refrain from
> trying to educate people on how they must behave online.

This is an unmoderated newsgroup, which means that Keith can't do any
more to stop you from acting rudely than you can do to stop him from
pointing out your rudeness. Enjoy!

[Doctor Who]

Thus I am acting rudely because I defend a woman?

what nicety, and what a pity.

[James Kuyper]

You're behaving rudely by discussing issues which aren't related to the
topic of this newsgroup. You're being sexist by claiming that a woman
deserves more respect than she would otherwise be entitled to if she
were instead male, but that's a separate issue. And you're showing bad
judgement by praising that particular woman, which is yet a third issue.
Also, keep in mind that this is the internet - there's no guarantee that
any particular person actually possesses the same gender that they claim
to possess. According to you, would I be entitled to more respect if I
posted using the name Juanita?

[James Kuyper]

Yes, that's an accurate summary of my intent. I should perhaps have said
that "respect, beyond the basic respect that every person is entitled
to, must be earned".

[David Brown]

You did not "defend a woman" - you /belittled/ a woman. (Assuming, of
course, that Bonita /is/ a woman.)

Gender does not matter in programming, or in discussions about
programming. Therefore, any treatment based on gender in a forum about
programming is necessarily sexist and prejudice. It doesn't matter
whether you are attacking a person for their gender, or defending them
because of it. You have, in essence, been saying that Bonita needs help
to argue on the internet because she is merely a woman - it is clearly
sexist on your part.

(It is absolutely fine to call out and complain about prejudice of any
sort - that is a different matter.)

> what nicety, and what a pity.
>

It is a pity that people are rude and sexist. I can't judge your
motives - without further evidence, I can assume that you meant well and
did not realise that you were being sexist. But now you know.

[Scott Lurndal]

That is two assumptions, and I've strong doubts about the first,
and the second is silly.

[Doctor Who]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 10:14:05 -0400, James Kuyper

what a misinterpretation of my intentions: I never claimed woman merit
"more" respect, I claimed woman merit respect, which was being negated
in this case.

In any case I just show my own respect for woman, and I am free to
manifest my feelings like I want.

and No, you wouldn't be entitled to more respect if your name was
Juanita, you would need to show that you are polite and an exceptional
programmer, then you would merit more respect :-)

[Doctor Who]

believe as you want, I take your words as a total herring from the
truth.

[Doctor Who]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:19:32 +0200, David Brown
<david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 02/06/2021 15:50, Doctor Who wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 09:34:04 -0400, James Kuyper
>> <james...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/2/21 5:49 AM, Doctor Who wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 01:47:58 -0700, Keith Thompson
>>>> <Keith.S.T...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> if you are not a moderator of this newsgroup please refrain from
>>>> trying to educate people on how they must behave online.
>>>
>>> This is an unmoderated newsgroup, which means that Keith can't do any
>>> more to stop you from acting rudely than you can do to stop him from
>>> pointing out your rudeness. Enjoy!
>>
>> Thus I am acting rudely because I defend a woman?
>>
>
>You did not "defend a woman" - you /belittled/ a woman. (Assuming, of
>course, that Bonita /is/ a woman.)
>
>Gender does not matter in programming, or in discussions about
>programming. Therefore, any treatment based on gender in a forum about
>programming is necessarily sexist and prejudice. It doesn't matter

the problem at hand is not the forum, but the person which was being
negated respect, and according to nickname she is a woman.

>whether you are attacking a person for their gender, or defending them
>because of it. You have, in essence, been saying that Bonita needs help
>to argue on the internet because she is merely a woman - it is clearly
>sexist on your part.

Yes! and I am free to help anybody I want to help.

[Scott Lurndal]

Doctor Who <d...@tardis.org> writes:
>On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 10:14:05 -0400, James Kuyper
><james...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

>>You're behaving rudely by discussing issues which aren't related to the
>>topic of this newsgroup. You're being sexist by claiming that a woman
>>deserves more respect than she would otherwise be entitled to if she
>>were instead male, but that's a separate issue. And you're showing bad
>>judgement by praising that particular woman, which is yet a third issue.
>>Also, keep in mind that this is the internet - there's no guarantee that
>>any particular person actually possesses the same gender that they claim
>>to possess. According to you, would I be entitled to more respect if I
>>posted using the name Juanita?
>
>what a misinterpretation of my intentions: I never claimed woman merit
>"more" respect, I claimed woman merit respect, which was being negated
>in this case.
>

Respect should be earned. Politeness should be de rigueur.

[David Brown]

On 02/06/2021 16:38, Doctor Who wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:19:32 +0200, David Brown
> <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
>> On 02/06/2021 15:50, Doctor Who wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 09:34:04 -0400, James Kuyper
>>> <james...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/2/21 5:49 AM, Doctor Who wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 01:47:58 -0700, Keith Thompson
>>>>> <Keith.S.T...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> if you are not a moderator of this newsgroup please refrain from
>>>>> trying to educate people on how they must behave online.
>>>>
>>>> This is an unmoderated newsgroup, which means that Keith can't do any
>>>> more to stop you from acting rudely than you can do to stop him from
>>>> pointing out your rudeness. Enjoy!
>>>
>>> Thus I am acting rudely because I defend a woman?
>>>
>>
>> You did not "defend a woman" - you /belittled/ a woman. (Assuming, of
>> course, that Bonita /is/ a woman.)
>>
>> Gender does not matter in programming, or in discussions about
>> programming. Therefore, any treatment based on gender in a forum about
>> programming is necessarily sexist and prejudice. It doesn't matter
>
>
> the problem at hand is not the forum, but the person which was being
> negated respect, and according to nickname she is a woman.

You are free to complain about people being rude or disrespectful - you
are /not/ free to do so because someone is (or appears to be) a woman.

If you had asked Mr. Spock to be more respectful and polite, that would
have been fine. But you said he should be respectful because she is a
woman - no other reason. /That/ is sexist, and disrespectful to Bonita.

How can this be difficult for you to understand?

(I know what it is like to communicate in a language other than one's
mother tongue - if you think the language is an issue, please say so.
You write perfectly good English so I will assume you understand my
language.)

>
>
>> whether you are attacking a person for their gender, or defending them
>> because of it. You have, in essence, been saying that Bonita needs help
>> to argue on the internet because she is merely a woman - it is clearly
>> sexist on your part.
>
> Yes! and I am free to help anybody I want to help.
>

You are free to help - you are not free to be sexist (or bigoted in
other ways) without being called out.

[Doctor Who]

On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 14:45:41 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

again disagreeing totally.

[Doctor Who]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 17:46:05 +0200, David Brown

because it is simply wrong.

>(I know what it is like to communicate in a language other than one's
>mother tongue - if you think the language is an issue, please say so.
>You write perfectly good English so I will assume you understand my
>language.)
>
>>
>>
>>> whether you are attacking a person for their gender, or defending them
>>> because of it. You have, in essence, been saying that Bonita needs help
>>> to argue on the internet because she is merely a woman - it is clearly
>>> sexist on your part.
>>
>> Yes! and I am free to help anybody I want to help.
>>
>
>You are free to help - you are not free to be sexist (or bigoted in
>other ways) without being called out.

effectively I am free to do and be as I like, this is the free
internet.

[Manfred]

On 6/2/2021 4:15 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 6/2/21 3:39 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 02/06/2021 06:14, James Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 6/1/21 11:10 PM, Doctor Who wrote:
>>> ...

It's also possible that Bonita and Doctor Who are the same person, and
they are joyfully trolling along

[Keith Thompson]

You first.

[Keith Thompson]

Doctor Who <d...@tardis.org> writes:
[...]

> effectively I am free to do and be as I like, this is the free
> internet.

Yes, you are free to post whatever you want in this unmoderated
newsgroup (which is carried on systems paid for by others, but
that's not particularly relevant).

I have seen nothing from you relevant to C++. I believe my view of
this newsgroup will be improved by your absence, and fortunately my
newsreader provides the tools to make that happen. I do not intend
to argue with you any further. (I would like to see others do the
same, but of course that's up to them.)

If you want to discuss C++, you're in the right place. If you want
to discuss how we should respect women, you're not. And to be clear,
this has nothing to do with whether you're right or wrong.

[Doctor Who]

On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 10:17:34 -0700, Keith Thompson
<Keith.S.T...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Doctor Who <d...@tardis.org> writes:
>[...]
>> effectively I am free to do and be as I like, this is the free
>> internet.
>
>Yes, you are free to post whatever you want in this unmoderated
>newsgroup (which is carried on systems paid for by others, but
>that's not particularly relevant).
>
>I have seen nothing from you relevant to C++. I believe my view of
>this newsgroup will be improved by your absence, and fortunately my
>newsreader provides the tools to make that happen. I do not intend
>to argue with you any further. (I would like to see others do the
>same, but of course that's up to them.)
>
>If you want to discuss C++, you're in the right place. If you want
>to discuss how we should respect women, you're not. And to be clear,
>this has nothing to do with whether you're right or wrong.

poop.

[Doctor Who]

On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 10:11:42 -0700, Keith Thompson

<Keith.S.T...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Doctor Who <d...@tardis.org> writes:
>> On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 01:47:58 -0700, Keith Thompson
>> <Keith.S.T...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Doctor Who <d...@tardis.org> writes:
>>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 00:14:14 -0400, James Kuyper
>>>> <james...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>>>>On 6/1/21 11:10 PM, Doctor Who wrote:
>>>>>...
>>>>>> AFAIK Bonita is a woman and as such you all owe her respect.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's a fairly sexist attitude. Respect is something that must be
>>>>>earned, not something that you're automatically entitled to by reason of
>>>>>your gender or your position. Bonita has rather spectacularly failed to
>>>>>earn my respect, which I'm quite certain doesn't bother her in the least.
>>>>
>>>> disagreeing totally. Respect is due to woman by virtue of ethics and
>>>> civilization.
>>>
>>>If you respect the participants in this newsgroup, consider refraining
>>>from coming in here and lecturing us on things that are unrelated to its
>>>topic.
>>
>> if you are not a moderator of this newsgroup please refrain from
>> trying to educate people on how they must behave online.
>
>You first.

poop.

[Doctor Who]

poop.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

She does have a tenancy to call people stupid morons. Also, she has this
rather strange habit of failing to quote properly. Oh well, shit
happens. :^)

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Oh my. Perhaps... Na, but... Humm.... Maybe?

[MrSpook_9...@bv5tkwx.biz]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 05:05:06 +0000 (UTC)
Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>MrSpoo...@6uikovuenojv.gov.uk wrote:
>>>"An attack to the person" does not mean "being aggressive towards the
>>>person (eg. with insults or swearwords)". It means "trying to discredit
>>>what the person is saying by discrediting the reputation of the person".

>>
>> Calling someone stupid fits that description nicely.
>

>Not really, because insulting someone is not making claims to try to
>hurt the reputation of the person and make other people turn against
>that person, usually by alluding to unrelated objectionable actions
>or beliefs (such as, for example, political beliefs). It's trying to
>erode the credibility of the person by accusing the person of having
>done or said something objectionable (usually completely unrelated
>to the discussion at hand).

Ok, whatever. You keep your own definition of ad hominem, the rest of us will
stick with the standard one.

[MrSpo...@zp_6z10zl3.info]

Can't you spot sarcasm?

Plus stick her name into google translate.