Standardization

[woodb...@gmail.com]

https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/98j03j/a_bug_in_the_c_standard/

Howard Hinnant replies with:
A bug in the C++ standard?!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME&t=0m10s

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-active.html

:-)
------------------------------------------------------------
SteeleDynamics replies to Howard with:

Who knew constructing a logical set semantic rules would be so hard?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Then I reply to SteeleDynamics with:

How many committee members drink too much or use illegal drugs? I'm not advocating for drug testing, but self sabotage is probably a problem.
------------------------------------------------------------

If the need for a royal priesthood (those who are being
rescued from various afflictions) wasn't clear before, I
hope that will change. The standardization process hasn't
been a total failure, but it hasn't gone real well either.


Ebenezer Enterprises - "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood,
a holy nation, G-d’s special possession, that you may declare the praises
of Him who called you out of darkness into His wonderful light." First Peter 2:9
https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards

[Melzzzzz]

On 2018-08-21, woodb...@gmail.com <woodb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How many committee members drink too much or use illegal drugs? I'm
> not advocating for drug testing, but self sabotage is probably a
> problem.

> Ebenezer Enterprises - "But you are a chosen people, a royal
> priesthood, a holy nation, G-d’s special possession, that you may
> declare the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His
> wonderful light." First Peter 2:9
> https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards

I see, you are on drugs already...

--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 11:02:34 PM UTC-5, Melzzzzz wrote:

> I see, you are on drugs already...
>

Possibly you would say Ben Shapiro is also on drugs
as he's an Orthodox Jew. But nothing could be further
from the truth. He thinks that smoking pot is a sin.
I used to drink too much in college, but now I only
drink a little and I've never done illegal drugs.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net

[Melzzzzz]

On 2018-08-21, woodb...@gmail.com <woodb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 11:02:34 PM UTC-5, Melzzzzz wrote:
>
>> I see, you are on drugs already...
>>
>
> Possibly you would say Ben Shapiro is also on drugs
> as he's an Orthodox Jew. But nothing could be further
> from the truth. He thinks that smoking pot is a sin.
> I used to drink too much in college, but now I only
> drink a little and I've never done illegal drugs.

So when marijuana becames legal you will smoke?

>
>
> Brian
> Ebenezer Enterprises
> http://webEbenezer.net
>
>

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 11:37:06 PM UTC-5, Melzzzzz wrote:

>
> So when marijuana becames legal you will smoke?
> >

If it were legal I wouldn't smoke it. It's a waste
of money.

[Scott Lurndal]

woodb...@gmail.com writes:
>On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 11:02:34 PM UTC-5, Melzzzzz wrote:
>
>> I see, you are on drugs already...
>>
>
>Possibly you would say Ben Shapiro is also on drugs

This has nothing to do with C++. Look up sanctimonious sometime. It's
not a complimenatary descriptor.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

I think we might agree that virtue is important to any endeavor.

[Scott Lurndal]

I think we might all agree that is a non sequitor, and not relevent
to C++.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 10:13:11 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> woodb...@gmail.com writes:

> >I think we might agree that virtue is important to any endeavor.
> >
>
> I think we might all agree that is a non sequitor, and not relevent
> to C++.

OK, so I maintain that self sabotage is a problem
for people on the committee and you disagree.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.
https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards

[james...@alumni.caltech.edu]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 12:21:06 PM UTC-4, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 10:13:11 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > woodb...@gmail.com writes:
>
> > >I think we might agree that virtue is important to any endeavor.
> > >
> >
> > I think we might all agree that is a non sequitor, and not relevent
> > to C++.
>
> OK, so I maintain that self sabotage is a problem
> for people on the committee and you disagree.

Just to clarify - self-sabotage is a problem for any person whose
activities should not be sabotaged, and he's said nothing to suggest
that he disagrees with you about that. However, you're presented no
reason for thinking that any such problem is relevant to C++.

[David Brown]

On 21/08/18 06:29, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 11:02:34 PM UTC-5, Melzzzzz wrote:
>
>> I see, you are on drugs already...
>>
>
> Possibly you would say Ben Shapiro is also on drugs
> as he's an Orthodox Jew. But nothing could be further
> from the truth. He thinks that smoking pot is a sin.
> I used to drink too much in college, but now I only
> drink a little and I've never done illegal drugs.
>

The number of wild leaps you make here are extraordinary.

First there is a blog post about a problem in the standard (of which
there are probably hundreds of greater importance than this one) - which
turns out to be something totally different (a missing point in the
Itanium ABI which means gcc and clang can't compile the code, and a bug
in MSVC that means it /does/ compile the code and breaks the ABI
standard), and indeed irrelevant to the guy's original problem.

Then you move on to accusing C++ committee members of being alcoholics
or drug abusers, and of /intentionally/ sabotaging C++.

This is your call for a "royal priesthood" of C++ - presumably, from
past posts, you will humbly take on this role appointed by your god who
apparently doesn't give a shit about wars, diseases, the overheated
garbage pile we are making of the earth, but is desperate to give
humanity a new messiah with the job of saving us from an inability to
make obscure proxy templates in C++.

And when people tell you you are off your head, it is apparently because
they think that some insignificant political commentator is on drugs?

Did I miss anything?

Did you actually want to say anything about C++?

[bitrex]

I don't like supporting the alcohol industry financially at all, in the
US at least it's an industry where the 80-20% rule strongly applies the
bulk of the profits comes from addicts, meanwhile the other 80% of
Americans are virtual teetotalers.

The 20%'s lives depend on cutting back while the 80% should probably
have a beer and smoke a weed from time to time might help them relax
because gosh Americans can be an uptight bunch sometimes

[bitrex]

On 08/21/2018 11:12 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> woodb...@gmail.com writes:
>> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 7:55:24 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> woodb...@gmail.com writes:
>>>> On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 11:02:34 PM UTC-5, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I see, you are on drugs already...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Possibly you would say Ben Shapiro is also on drugs
>>>
>>> This has nothing to do with C++. Look up sanctimonious sometime. It's
>>> not a complimenatary descriptor.
>>
>> I think we might agree that virtue is important to any endeavor.
>>
>
> I think we might all agree that is a non sequitor, and not relevent
> to C++.
>

I think we might all agree that the developers of Forth were smoking crack

[jacobnavia]

Le 22/08/2018 à 08:52, David Brown a écrit :
> This is your call for a "royal priesthood" of C++ - presumably, from
> past posts, you will humbly take on this role appointed by your god who
> apparently doesn't give a shit about wars, diseases, the overheated
> garbage pile we are making of the earth, but is desperate to give
> humanity a new messiah with the job of saving us from an inability to
> make obscure proxy templates in C++.

YEEEESSSSSS!!!!!

We NEED those proxy templates more than anything else!

:-)

All religious zealots are equally comic, and this one is no exception.

[Robert Wessel]

I've met Chuck Moore, the developer (singular) of Forth, and he really
didn't seem the type. Not to mention the fact that widespread
availability of crack cocaine long post-dates the invention of Forth.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 1:53:11 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>
> The number of wild leaps you make here are extraordinary.
>
> First there is a blog post about a problem in the standard (of which
> there are probably hundreds of greater importance than this one) - which
> turns out to be something totally different (a missing point in the
> Itanium ABI which means gcc and clang can't compile the code, and a bug
> in MSVC that means it /does/ compile the code and breaks the ABI
> standard), and indeed irrelevant to the guy's original problem.
>
> Then you move on to accusing C++ committee members of being alcoholics
> or drug abusers,

I said the standardization process hasn't been a total failure or
gone real well.

> and of /intentionally/ sabotaging C++.

I didn't accuse anyone of intentionally sabotaging C++.

[bitrex]

It's just a little...well it's...Okay fair enough but something's got to
be the language where they were!

[David Brown]

Forth is a bit unusual, but it is quite efficient. VM's for Forth are
tiny in comparison to most VM's, and programs are also small. It was
used for drivers for plug-in cards for workstations for a while - the
card would come with drivers in Forth in a little eprom so that you just
plugged it in and everything worked whether you had a Sparc, a MIPS, a
PPC, or whatever processor.

And it is also a good language for more compact processors with
stack-based processing - it is dominant in the 4-bit world.

[David Brown]

On 23/08/18 05:06, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 1:53:11 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>>
>> The number of wild leaps you make here are extraordinary.
>>
>> First there is a blog post about a problem in the standard (of which
>> there are probably hundreds of greater importance than this one) - which
>> turns out to be something totally different (a missing point in the
>> Itanium ABI which means gcc and clang can't compile the code, and a bug
>> in MSVC that means it /does/ compile the code and breaks the ABI
>> standard), and indeed irrelevant to the guy's original problem.
>>
>> Then you move on to accusing C++ committee members of being alcoholics
>> or drug abusers,
>
> I said the standardization process hasn't been a total failure or
> gone real well.

You accused them of being alcoholics or drug abusers:

> Then I reply to SteeleDynamics with:

> How many committee members drink too much or use illegal drugs?

>

>> and of /intentionally/ sabotaging C++.
>
> I didn't accuse anyone of intentionally sabotaging C++.
>

You wrote:

> OK, so I maintain that self sabotage is a problem
> for people on the committee and you disagree.

So now you are just saying they are sabotaging C++ by accident -
presumably because they are all drunk on the job?

[James Kuyper]

On 08/23/2018 01:43 AM, bitrex wrote:
> On 08/22/2018 05:56 PM, Robert Wessel wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 16:03:33 -0400, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

...

>>> I think we might all agree that the developers of Forth were smoking crack
>>
>>
>> I've met Chuck Moore, the developer (singular) of Forth, and he really
>> didn't seem the type. Not to mention the fact that widespread
>> availability of crack cocaine long post-dates the invention of Forth.
>>
>
> It's just a little...well it's...Okay fair enough but something's got to
> be the language where they were!

I think that just about any of the languages listed here:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_programming_language>
might qualify. I'm particularly intrigued by Piet.

[James Kuyper]

On 08/23/2018 02:14 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 23/08/18 05:06, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 1:53:11 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> The number of wild leaps you make here are extraordinary.
>>>
>>> First there is a blog post about a problem in the standard (of which
>>> there are probably hundreds of greater importance than this one) - which
>>> turns out to be something totally different (a missing point in the
>>> Itanium ABI which means gcc and clang can't compile the code, and a bug
>>> in MSVC that means it /does/ compile the code and breaks the ABI
>>> standard), and indeed irrelevant to the guy's original problem.
>>>
>>> Then you move on to accusing C++ committee members of being alcoholics
>>> or drug abusers,
>>
>> I said the standardization process hasn't been a total failure or
>> gone real well.
>
> You accused them of being alcoholics or drug abusers:
>
> > Then I reply to SteeleDynamics with:
> > How many committee members drink too much or use illegal drugs?

To be fair, that's technically only a question, not an accusation,
though the fact that the question is being asked implies the accusation.

>>> and of /intentionally/ sabotaging C++.
>>
>> I didn't accuse anyone of intentionally sabotaging C++.
>>
>
> You wrote:
>
> > OK, so I maintain that self sabotage is a problem
> > for people on the committee and you disagree.
>
> So now you are just saying they are sabotaging C++ by accident -
> presumably because they are all drunk on the job?

Again, to be fair, he specified "self-sabotage" rather than sabotage of
C++. However, given the context, this is probably due to poor wording.
He probably intended to accuse the committee of self-sabotage, rather
than the individual members of the committee.