if cargo blocks

[Rick C. Hodgin]

I've had the idea for an "if cargo" block. It is a standard if {}
block, but one containing additional cargo prefixed by in, out, and
enter keywords, to be contained within each if clause to run before,
after, and when entering the if statement.

The enter clause is given specifically to relate to something that
should be done, possibly to undo something done in the in clause,
including possibly calling the out clause to undo that setup, and
prepare it for whatever other code is needed within the block.

The cargo portion allows a sequence of conditions to be established
sequentially, in a traditional if{} block, with the ability to inject
new code at each stage to augment the environment, to then live-test
the condition.

if (some_test1)
in { setup_for_test1 }
out { cleanup_for_test1 }
enter { related_code_if_block_entered1 }
{
// Code1 here for this test passing

} else if (some_test2)
in { setup_for_test2 }
out { cleanup_for_test2 }
enter { related_code_if_block_entered2 }
{
// Code2 here for this test passing
}

-----
The above would work out to this logic:

setup_for_test1;
if (some_test1)
{
related_code_if_block_is_entered1;
// Code1 here for this test passing
goto all_done;

} else {
cleanup_for_test1;
}

setup_for_test2;
if (some_test2)
{
related_code_if_block_is_entered2;
// Code2 here for this test passing

} else {
cleanup_for_test2;
}
all_done:

-----
It allows code for setup_for_test, cleanup_for_test, and
related_code_if_block_entered to be encapsulated into its
intended meaning by placing it where it's used, related
to how it's being used, being easily understood as to what
it's really doing.

It also implicitly documents the purpose of that code nearby,
as being part of each if{} statement's prepare, test, cleanup
code.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[David Brown]

If your suggestion works out to that code, why not just write that code?
It is simpler and clearer, and would make it obvious that the
"cleanup" code is not called if the branch is taken. And the "goto" can
be avoided by using nested "if", or early returns, if that is what
bothers you.

I am at a loss to understand why you want so many new syntaxes for
different ways of writing the same code in different non-sequential orders.

[Mr Flibble]

The problem is Rick doesn't understand how to use modern C++ properly. He
appears to be unaware of the RAII idiom and how it relates to scope bound
resource management for example. Rick is a classic case of DOING IT WRONG
due to ignorance.

Rick is attempting to wallpaper over the gaps in his knowledge with his
klunky "language extensions".

/Flibble

--
“You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais

“I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who
doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” –
Ricky Gervais

"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery
that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a
world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."

[fir]

dik is rather clasic case of idiot posessed by devil

devil must dont like usenet if sents posessed idiots to fight with usenet here (ramine..hodgin.. )

[Bart]

On 29/12/2018 15:42, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> I've had the idea for an "if cargo" block.  It is a standard if {}
> block,

Which is easy to explain, easy to understand, and supported in pretty
much every language.

but one containing additional cargo prefixed by in, out, and
> enter keywords, to be contained within each if clause to run before,
> after, and when entering the if statement.

Which isn't.

>     if (some_test1)
>         in    { setup_for_test1 }
>         out   { cleanup_for_test1 }
>         enter { related_code_if_block_entered1 }

Wouldn't these be better as in, enter, out?

> The above would work out to this logic:

So, given:

if (A) in {B} out {C} enter {D} {E}
else if (F) in {G} out {H} enter {I} {J}

this is equivalent to:

if (B; A) {D; E; C}
else if (G; F) {I; J; H} ?

(Standard C can't have statements inside a condition expression; gcc can.)

Notice how the equivalent code is shorter and easier to understand by
anyone even if they have no idea cargo-if is.

My suggestion is, rather than invent many dozens of whacky features
(largely incompatible with each other) is to either add more fundamental
ones, such as being able to write 'if (B; A)', or to have one generic
feature that allows things such as the above to be added (language
building).

The latter has the advantage that the core language - apart from this
feature - is smaller and simpler, and is faster and more practical to
implement.

> -----
> It allows code for setup_for_test, cleanup_for_test, and
> related_code_if_block_entered to be encapsulated into its
> intended meaning by placing it where it's used, related
> to how it's being used, being easily understood as to what
> it's really doing.

You can already encapsulate any code inside {...}. You do need to have
it in the right order, but it is an advantage if {A} {B} and {C} are
executed in the order A, B and C.

--
bart

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 12/29/2018 11:56 AM, Bart wrote:
> On 29/12/2018 15:42, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>      if (some_test1)
>>          in    { setup_for_test1 }
>>          out   { cleanup_for_test1 }
>>          enter { related_code_if_block_entered1 }
>
> Wouldn't these be better as in, enter, out?

They're labeled. They go in the correct flow order no matter what order
they appear in source code.

Another option that should be added for if cargo blocks is the ability
to continue testing at the next else-if/else condition. I think it
should be "prevtest;" and "nexttest;" and "gotest label;" where label
by the name given to a block. Also, the "out;" keyword which operates
like break; for a loop, except it works within the if blocks:

if (x)
{
nexttest; // Continues with the "else if (y)" test
gotest zlabel; // Go to the "else if (z)" test

} else if (y) {
// Code here
prevtest; // Retest "else if (y)" block
gotest last; // Go to the else block

} else if (z) zlabel {
if (whatever)
out; // Leave the if-block

} else last {
// Code here
}

Note the above are all unconditional branches and will perform
their action when encountered, so in this example "gotest zlabel"
and "gotest last" would never be executed. They are just examples
showing how branching could work from one place to another.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[rbowman]

On 12/29/2018 08:42 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> I've had the idea for an "if cargo" block.

As my father used to say 'If it ain't broke, don't f*ck with it.'

You do realize your ideas are confusing semantic sugar for operations
that can be done much more transparently?

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 12/29/2018 3:57 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On 12/29/2018 08:42 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> I've had the idea for an "if cargo" block.
>

> As my father used to say 'If it ain't broke, don't .. with it.'

>
> You do realize your ideas are confusing semantic sugar for operations that
> can be done much more transparently?

Do you realize you're harming yourself and many people with the words
you use in your writing?

I disagree with this type of feature being semantic sugar. I think
there is value in encapsulation and in relating code. It extends to
a larger vision I have for how code should be written, but this is a
part and parcel of that larger vision.

I offer it for scrutiny by others in C/C++ groups so that those who
write compilers could consider the idea, and then reject it, alter it
and use it, or accept as is.

It's everyone's choice. I offer these ideas to spark thought, engage
conversation and discussion, etc.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Mr Flibble]

On 29/12/2018 21:03, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> It's everyone's choice.  I offer these ideas to spark thought, engage
> conversation and discussion, etc.

Bullshit; you offer these "ideas" for no other reason than to satisfy a
self indulgent attention seeking need.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 12/29/2018 12:57 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On 12/29/2018 08:42 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> I've had the idea for an "if cargo" block.
>
> As my father used to say 'If it ain't broke, don't f*ck with it.'

:^D

[rbowman]

On 12/29/2018 02:03 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On 12/29/2018 3:57 PM, rbowman wrote:
>> On 12/29/2018 08:42 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> I've had the idea for an "if cargo" block.
>>
>> As my father used to say 'If it ain't broke, don't .. with it.'
>>
>> You do realize your ideas are confusing semantic sugar for operations
>> that can be done much more transparently?
>
> Do you realize you're harming yourself and many people with the words
> you use in your writing?

Ask me if I give a ... Well, you get the idea. I'm old, grumpy, and I
don't suffer fools gladly.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

People don't have to remain that way (grumpy). There is a way to be
as new again ... one filled with love, hope, peace, and overflowing
joy. It's the one I teach you about, the one you call me a fool for.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Bart]

You've just reinvented spaghetti code I think. And loops.

But you don't need new features for that. I assume 'nexttest' and
'prevtest' and 'gotest' are special kinds of gotos? How does it work
with nested if/else statements?

Never mind; this is too much of a crazy idea to pursue further.

BTW here's how you can express your example in current C:

if (x)
{
goto ylabel; // Continues with the "else if (y)" test
goto zlabel; // Go to the "else if (z)" test

} else ylabel: if (y) {
// Code here
goto ylabel; // Retest "else if (y)" block
goto last; // Go to the else block

} else zlabel: if (z) {
if (whatever)
goto out; // Leave the if-block

} else last: {
// Code here
}

out:;

[Rick C. Hodgin]

The spaghetti code exists when you don't have in, out, and enter. The
features I've added to CAlive, including flow {..} blocks, and now the
cargo blocks, remove spaghetti code, and place a direct type of flow
control to one's code without using gotos, without using anything other
than structured programming.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Mr Flibble]

Structured programming? Structured obfuscation more like. Again a totally
batshit crazy idea that serves no useful purpose whatsoever.

[rbowman]

On 12/29/2018 04:52 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> The spaghetti code exists when you don't have in, out, and enter. The
> features I've added to CAlive, including flow {..} blocks, and now the
> cargo blocks, remove spaghetti code, and place a direct type of flow
> control to one's code without using gotos, without using anything other
> than structured programming.
>

I lived through the era when you had to place your hand over your heart
and swear eternal allegiance to top down structured programming and
promise to never use the evil GOTO.

Rather like the grammarian’s damnation of ending a sentence with a
preposition it resulted in some of the most convoluted messes I've ever
seen. The programming example is a bit more hypocritical since in most
cases you want the compiler to do the dirty work.

[Bart]

On 29/12/2018 23:52, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On 12/29/2018 6:49 PM, Bart wrote:

>>>      if (x)
>>>      {
>>>          nexttest;       // Continues with the "else if (y)" test
>>>          gotest zlabel;  // Go to the "else if (z)" test
>>>
>>>      } else if (y) {
>>>          // Code here
>>>          prevtest;       // Retest "else if (y)" block
>>>          gotest last;    // Go to the else block
>>>
>>>      } else if (z) zlabel {
>>>          if (whatever)
>>>              out;        // Leave the if-block
>>>
>>>      } else last {
>>>          // Code here
>>>      }

>> You've just reinvented spaghetti code I think. And loops.
>
> The spaghetti code exists when you don't have in, out, and enter.  The
> features I've added to CAlive, including flow {..} blocks, and now the
> cargo blocks, remove spaghetti code, and place a direct type of flow
> control to one's code without using gotos, without using anything other
> than structured programming.

'gotest' is not a kind of goto?

Without goto, then with the form of if-else chain above, exactly one
branch is expected to be executed each time you enter the first 'if'.

And it will continue execution (subject to break, continue, return,
exit() or longjmp()) following the final }.

As for the execution path of your example, it's anyone's guess. After
'if' is entered, more than one block could be executed, and a block
could be executed multiple times.

Structured programming it isn't.


--
bart

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 12/29/2018 9:07 PM, Bart wrote:
> On 29/12/2018 23:52, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> On 12/29/2018 6:49 PM, Bart wrote:
>
>>>>      if (x)
>>>>      {
>>>>          nexttest;       // Continues with the "else if (y)" test
>>>>          gotest zlabel;  // Go to the "else if (z)" test
>>>>
>>>>      } else if (y) {
>>>>          // Code here
>>>>          prevtest;       // Retest "else if (y)" block
>>>>          gotest last;    // Go to the else block
>>>>
>>>>      } else if (z) zlabel {
>>>>          if (whatever)
>>>>              out;        // Leave the if-block
>>>>
>>>>      } else last {
>>>>          // Code here
>>>>      }
>

> 'gotest' is not a kind of goto?

nexttest, pretest, and gotest all signify new abilities that didn't
previously exist. They allow flow control into the middle of an
existing flow controlled portion of program flow, such as re-entering
an if..else if..else statement at an arbitrary point on the test cond-
itions, not just to the intervening logic.

The syntax above is also incorrect for zlabel. It should be:

} else if zlabel (z) {

if (whatever)
out; // Leave the if-block

> Without goto, then with the form of if-else chain above, exactly one branch
> is expected to be executed each time you enter the first 'if'.
>
> And it will continue execution (subject to break, continue, return, exit() or
> longjmp()) following the final }.

Correct. The new keywords introduce new abilities to re-enter the
conditional test portion of the flow control.

> As for the execution path of your example, it's anyone's guess. After 'if' is
> entered, more than one block could be executed, and a block could be executed
> multiple times.

The keywords re-enter flow-control at the testing level, and will pro-
ceed normally at that point.

> Structured programming it isn't.

It's a structured way to enter those portions. No arbitrary code lo-
cation labels, but rather labels on existing flow control members.
They simply operate similar to break and continue, but do so in the
middle of the flow control stream used for if..else if..else.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Ralf Goertz]

Am Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:04:28 -0700
schrieb rbowman <bow...@montana.com>:

> Rather like the grammarian’s damnation of ending a sentence with a
> preposition it resulted in some of the most convoluted messes I've
> ever seen.

Although I have been communicating in English for quite a while now, I
heard about that damnation only rather recently. Does that mean you are
not supposed to say "What are you looking for?" but should say "For what
are you looking?" instead? The former /feels/ correct because I hear it
very often, I guess more often than the latter. But then I also very
often hear "What do you got?" in American TV shows which feels like a
horrible abuse of language…

[David Brown]

On 30/12/2018 06:12, Ralf Goertz wrote:
> Am Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:04:28 -0700
> schrieb rbowman <bow...@montana.com>:
>
>> Rather like the grammarian’s damnation of ending a sentence with a
>> preposition it resulted in some of the most convoluted messes I've
>> ever seen.
>
> Although I have been communicating in English for quite a while now, I
> heard about that damnation only rather recently. Does that mean you are
> not supposed to say "What are you looking for?" but should say "For what
> are you looking?" instead?

Yes, that is correct.

> The former /feels/ correct because I hear it
> very often, I guess more often than the latter. But then I also very
> often hear "What do you got?" in American TV shows which feels like a
> horrible abuse of language…
>

It is a matter of philosophical debate whether the kind of grammatical
abuse found on American TV shows is ignorance, laziness, or the
evolution of language.

"To boldly go where no man has gone before" - is it bad grammar, or has
it changed the language?

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <q0akdp$74k$1...@dont-email.me>,
David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
...

>It is a matter of philosophical debate whether the kind of grammatical
>abuse found on American TV shows is ignorance, laziness, or the
>evolution of language.

All of the above.

It's a race to the bottom.

>"To boldly go where no man has gone before" - is it bad grammar, or has
>it changed the language?

Both. All of the above.

--
If it seems like I'm not responding to some moronic criticism that you've
posted in response to one of my posts, be aware that I do not debate with idiots.

It doesn't mean you've won anything...

[rbowman]

At least when I was a kid teachers drummed it into your head, along with
not splitting infinitives and starting a sentence with a conjunction.
Structuring the sentence 'correctly' usually results in a stilted,
pedantic phrase seldom found outside of an old book.

'What do you got?' sounds ignorant to me, but I don't know what a
grammarian would say. 'Do you have a pen?' and 'Have you got a pen?'
both sound right to me but mixing 'do' and 'got' doesn't.

Languages change and the rules slowly follow. I'm sure my German, what I
remember of it, would be unbearably quaint. In high school we were still
chewing our way through Fraktur although the Antiqua-Fraktur war was over.

[rbowman]

On 12/30/2018 08:39 AM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <q0akdp$74k$1...@dont-email.me>,
> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> ...
>> It is a matter of philosophical debate whether the kind of grammatical
>> abuse found on American TV shows is ignorance, laziness, or the
>> evolution of language.
> All of the above.

I doubt if it is limited to American TV. Besides, most of our actors are
Brits or Aussies :)

[Siri Cruise]

In article <q084io$qe1$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The cargo portion allows a sequence of conditions to be established
> sequentially, in a traditional if{} block, with the ability to inject
> new code at each stage to augment the environment, to then live-test
> the condition.
>
> if (some_test1)
> in { setup_for_test1 }
> out { cleanup_for_test1 }
> enter { related_code_if_block_entered1 }

If you have GNU extensions,

if (({
setup_for_test1
bool test = some_test1
if (test) related_code_if_block_entered1
cleanup_for_test1;
test;
})) {
...
}

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 12/30/2018 4:00 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <q084io$qe1$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The cargo portion allows a sequence of conditions to be established
>> sequentially, in a traditional if{} block, with the ability to inject
>> new code at each stage to augment the environment, to then live-test
>> the condition.
>>
>> if (some_test1)
>> in { setup_for_test1 }
>> out { cleanup_for_test1 }
>> enter { related_code_if_block_entered1 }
>
> If you have GNU extensions,
>
> if (({
> setup_for_test1
> bool test = some_test1
> if (test) related_code_if_block_entered1
> cleanup_for_test1;
> test;
> })) {
> ...
> }

So the general concept of encapsulation of this code is not such a bad
idea ... GNU added similar features. Good to know.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Siri Cruise]

In article <q0bc9c$qln$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/30/2018 4:00 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> > In article <q084io$qe1$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The cargo portion allows a sequence of conditions to be established
> >> sequentially, in a traditional if{} block, with the ability to inject
> >> new code at each stage to augment the environment, to then live-test
> >> the condition.
> >>
> >> if (some_test1)
> >> in { setup_for_test1 }
> >> out { cleanup_for_test1 }
> >> enter { related_code_if_block_entered1 }
> >
> > If you have GNU extensions,
> >
> > if (({
> > setup_for_test1
> > bool test = some_test1
> > if (test) related_code_if_block_entered1
> > cleanup_for_test1;
> > test;
> > })) {
> > ...
> > }
>
> So the general concept of encapsulation of this code is not such a bad
> idea ... GNU added similar features. Good to know.

In 1968 you could've done

if setup_for_test1; bool test = some_test1;
if test then related_code_if_block_entered1 fi;
cleanup_for_test1; test
then
...
fi

[Rick C. Hodgin]

It only makes sense. It is another of those fundamental operations
that is not easily provided for in C/C++ today (without extensions
like those seen in GNU).

CAlive's goal is to provide for fundamental abilities. None of the
atypical ones have to be used by anyone. But, if you want to use
them in certain cases ... they'll be there. I probably won't use
many of the new features I'm adding most of the time, but I will
probably use most of them some of the time.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Bart]

The reference is to Algol68 where there is no distinction between
statements and expressions, which could be used interchangeably.

This is what I meant the other day about adding fewer, more general,
broader features rather than dozens of very specific ones.

Actually, my language until about six or so years ago worked exactly the
same way. My newer one doesn't - it is more conservative and limited by
design.

Because (1) I hardly ever used those features; (2) avoiding them leads
to easier-to-understand code IMO; (3) it makes code and algorithms more
portable; (4) it makes the language easier to implement; (5) it makes it
easier to trap a range of errors that otherwise have to be let through.

--
bart

[Rick C. Hodgin]

My goals with CAlive are the needs of development by other people. I
want to give them a robust set of tools in version 1.0. If, in by the
time version 5.0 is released some of the features are not in use and
not needed, I may consider removing them. However, my general phil-
osophy is that once something is written it's not that difficult to
keep it moving forward. Even if you don't change anything, but just
make sure the interface to the prior-written thing continues to work,
it may be of use to some people.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Ralf Goertz]

Am Sun, 30 Dec 2018 15:23:53 +0100
schrieb David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no>:

> On 30/12/2018 06:12, Ralf Goertz wrote:
> > Am Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:04:28 -0700
> > schrieb rbowman <bow...@montana.com>:
> >
> >> Rather like the grammarian’s damnation of ending a sentence with a
> >> preposition it resulted in some of the most convoluted messes I've
> >> ever seen.
> >
> > Although I have been communicating in English for quite a while
> > now, I heard about that damnation only rather recently. Does that
> > mean you are not supposed to say "What are you looking for?" but
> > should say "For what are you looking?" instead?
>
> Yes, that is correct.

Hm, grammar girl seems to have a different opinion: https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/ending-a-sentence-with-a-preposition

BTW (to answer Stefan's SCNR), this is exactly the reason why I asked my
question here in a programming newsgroup. Here, there are many
intelligent native speakers whose focus is probably not grammar. Their
gut feeling about their language is quite a valuable input for me to
develop my own gut feeling. Although I must admit that I will never have
as strong a gut feeling for English as I have for my own language.

> > The former /feels/ correct because I hear it
> > very often, I guess more often than the latter. But then I also very
> > often hear "What do you got?" in American TV shows which feels like
> > a horrible abuse of language…
> >
>
> It is a matter of philosophical debate whether the kind of
> grammatical abuse found on American TV shows is ignorance, laziness,
> or the evolution of language.
>
> "To boldly go where no man has gone before" - is it bad grammar, or
> has it changed the language?

It took my quite a while to figure out what could be objectionable in
that sentence. It seems to be the rule not to split an infinitive, a
rule about which I had no idea two days ago. (Apart from "Manner, space,
time makes your English fine" I don't remember being taught any style
rule at school.) Interestingly, for me both ending with a preposition
and splitting an infinitive feel very "English" probably because there
is no way you could use either construct in a German sentence.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

In new years 2019, will CAlive be in the form of source code, everything
in a single directory, or an install program?

[Ralf Goertz]

Am Sun, 30 Dec 2018 11:09:40 -0700
schrieb rbowman <bow...@montana.com>:

> 'What do you got?' sounds ignorant to me, but I don't know what a
> grammarian would say. 'Do you have a pen?' and 'Have you got a pen?'
> both sound right to me but mixing 'do' and 'got' doesn't.

That's interesting. Your wording suggests it is less objectionable for
you than it is for me. "Do" when used as an auxiliary always needs to be
followed by an infinitive, that's the rule I learnt.

> Languages change and the rules slowly follow. I'm sure my German,
> what I remember of it, would be unbearably quaint. In high school we
> were still chewing our way through Fraktur although the
> Antiqua-Fraktur war was over.

Really? Fraktur was not taught at my time in German schools, I had to
learn it on my own and I only did it because we had some old books I
wanted to read.

[Öö Tiib]

At 15. October he said that he will have some sort of useful fruit "in a
year or so".
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.lang.c++/fmRcHJQP8T8/lS2LwMA3BgAJ
Unfortunately he seems to be in feature creep of odd syntactic stuff.
I hope being wrong but suspect that we see nothing in October 2019.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

I am not on a schedule for release as by date. I am on a schedule
for release as by steps accomplished, and goals / milestones achieved.

My goals are to do things right, and to not skimp or sacrifice aspects
of design for release dates. I am not release date driven.

I've had something happen in my life this month which will alter
my plans by at least six months. We'll see how it ultimately impacts
my schedule.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Öö Tiib]

So I thought. IOW there will be no fruit from you in foreseeable future.
BTW "schedule" is basic time-management tool and without any
times set it sounds sort of like nonsense.

BTW Catholics have released their CALive:
https://itunes.apple.com/sc/app/calive/id971611664?mt=8

[fir]

this release date is good example of imbecile dik lie:

he used tos bulshit to bump himself and be happy as imbecile, in parrallel he obviously lies (this bump is false, but for poor dick it is usable to bump himself in a mood, that is how idiots are happy when they lie about themselves

if idiot has no limit being truthful he may imagine he is great being in fact imbeclile idiot

thats why i say dont behave like halftrolls bartc or thomasson, who feeds dik imbecile and help him to greatly degrade thsi place mentally.. better kick this idiot out just to defend doses of mental level /inteligence here)

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 5:33:48 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Monday, 31 December 2018 11:46:07 UTC+2, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 4:19:27 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > > On Monday, 31 December 2018 06:25:46 UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > In new years 2019, will CAlive be in the form of source code, everything
> > > > in a single directory, or an install program?
> > >
> > > At 15. October he said that he will have some sort of useful fruit "in a
> > > year or so".
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.lang.c++/fmRcHJQP8T8/lS2LwMA3BgAJ
> >
> > I am not on a schedule for release as by date. I am on a schedule
> > for release as by steps accomplished, and goals / milestones achieved.
> >
> > My goals are to do things right, and to not skimp or sacrifice aspects
> > of design for release dates. I am not release date driven.
> >
> > I've had something happen in my life this month which will alter
> > my plans by at least six months. We'll see how it ultimately impacts
> > my schedule.
>
> So I thought. IOW there will be no fruit from you in foreseeable future.

You see what your own "eyes" generate for you, not the truth.

> BTW "schedule" is basic time-management tool and without any
> times set it sounds sort of like nonsense.

It's the difference between a business model and a task model. I had
a time schedule associated with my task schedule, but life things come
up unexpectedly. This one is of my own doing and I have needs to
address it ahead of other things.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[fir]

as to if (not to make any propositions but to rethink some things a bit) i regularely use such think i 'invented' (saying invented as i use it but i guess people must use it too, its a bit to obvious to name it as invention)

static int initialised = 0;
if(!initialised)
{
//....
initialised = 1;
}

this would fit to extended if from like this one of extended loop: for

ife(static int ini = 0; !ini; ini = 1)
{
//...
}

hovever thsi looks rather idiotic
interesting is hovever resemblence beteween such if and for

for(static int ini = 0; !ini; ini = 1)
{
//....
}

this shows btw that someone if would be like in jjoking mood could turn all ifs in program into fors

both thiose syntaxes probably would look
better if turned

ife(!ini; static int ini = 0; ini = 1)
{
//...
}

for(i<100; int i=0; i++) { }

this is more readable imo, so what if it is not in natural order as putting those piecs of code here in that header breaks the sequentiality anyay

not saying that this kind of if is needed its more on pointing for and if resemblance and that those parts are rather in unreadeble order, it also may show that for would need shorter more oldschool form

int i=0;
for(i<100)
{

i++;
}

[fir]

also could be pointed as a curiosity
that those loops forms in c could be reduced (even quite logically) by throwing away while and for keywords only by combination of do and if

do //loop
{

}


do if(s) //while - do
{

}

//or maybe better if(s) do { }

//there is also option of if(s){} do

do //do-while
{

} if(s)

hovever in this last form i wonder if a word while would not be better as this is not normal if but backwarding if

there is also an option of 4-th form

do if(s)
{

} while(p)


[someone could else allowing putting additional codes into various places

int i=0; do
{

} (i++) while (i<100)

(its not any proposition only remerk on possible options)]

[fir]

W dniu poniedziałek, 31 grudnia 2018 12:46:31 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał:
> there is also an option of 4-th form
>
> do if(s)
> {
>
> } while(p)
>
>

probably most full form would be something like that

if(s) do
{

} if(p) repeat

or

if(s) do
{

} repeat while(p)

though those keywords exact naming is a matter of language taste, also tthere are verious posibilities of chosing shortcuts to this full form and c had made some (not exacly those most fortunate)

(also tehre is mentioned option to put some code in between those heywords and bracers

///////

this option of using such things as

for(static int ini = 0; !ini; ini = 1)
{
//....
}

instead of

static int initialised = 0;
if(!initialised)
{
//....
initialised = 1;
}

is separate domain ; ifis for look like i said more idiotic but the advantage is it is compact, it visueally 'compacts' some
spreaded pattern ant this is advantage

hovever at least the ordes should be changed as i said for(i<100; int i=0; i++) is no doubt better

also there is an option of

for(i<100)
{
int i=0;

//....

i++;
}

this is possible to consider, this rule local is not seen higher is posible to deny (its hovever not a proposition, i say only it may be cnsidered)

note also using do repeat makes it possible to write loop without bracers

do

repeat

and it better than for endf and that things becouse this "endf" is not physical just fat form of "}" and here this repat is machine-physical and that makes things better

(fir)

[fir]

so the question is thet, so what could be the cleanest form of loop in c after that what was said, are im able to answer that?

im not sure

in fact if using full if-do-repeat-while
schem there are two places where you can
put loop code after do or after repaat
before while and this second option seems gramatically better

do int i=0 repeat i++ while i<100

do int i=0; repeat printf("\n%d", i); i++; while i<100;

here do works more like setup only

dosnt seem to much quick to eye
compared to

for(int i=0; i<100; i++)
printf("\n%d", i);

or more better

for( i<100; int i=0; i++)
printf("\n%d", i);

but logically there is something in it

do(int i=0)
repeat { printf("\n%d", i); i++; }
while (i<100)

do(int i=0)
printf("\n%d", i);
repeat (i++) while(i<100)

i dont know

[Siri Cruise]

In article <f6636e54-5d8a-4c93...@googlegroups.com>,

fir <profes...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > this shows btw that someone if would be like in jjoking mood could turn all
> > ifs in program into fors

'if (p) s' is equivalent to 'for (bool trip=true; trip && (p); trip=false) s'

> also could be pointed as a curiosity
> that those loops forms in c could be reduced (even quite logically) by
> throwing away while and for keywords only by combination of do and if
>
> do //loop
> {
>
> }

The simplest form of a revised algol 68 loop is 'do series od'.

Djiskstra's notion is

do p1 then s1 else p2 then s2 else ... else pn then sn od
if q1 then t1 else q2 then t2 else ... else qn then tn fi

Repeat while any pi is true, and choose any i such that pi is true to evaluate
si, otherwise terminate the loop. The do has no value.

If any of the qi is true, and choose any i such that qi is true to evaluate ti.
The value of the if is the value of ti. If no qi is true, the value of the if is
undefined.

[fir]

W dniu poniedziałek, 31 grudnia 2018 14:13:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Siri Cruise napisał:
> In article <f6636e54-5d8a-4c93...@googlegroups.com>,
> fir <profes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > this shows btw that someone if would be like in jjoking mood could turn all
> > > ifs in program into fors
>
> 'if (p) s' is equivalent to 'for (bool trip=true; trip && (p); trip=false) s'
>

it would berather

if(x) ->

for(; x; break;)

i not tested it though ;c

[fir]

W dniu poniedziałek, 31 grudnia 2018 14:13:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Siri Cruise napisał:
>

> The simplest form of a revised algol 68 loop is 'do series od'.
>
> Djiskstra's notion is
>
> do p1 then s1 else p2 then s2 else ... else pn then sn od
> if q1 then t1 else q2 then t2 else ... else qn then tn fi
>
> Repeat while any pi is true, and choose any i such that pi is true to evaluate
> si, otherwise terminate the loop. The do has no value.
>
> If any of the qi is true, and choose any i such that qi is true to evaluate ti.
> The value of the if is the value of ti. If no qi is true, the value of the if is
> undefined.
>

i thinked on those loop forms yet and such forms like this

1) repeat beep();
2) if(timer<100) repeat beep();
3) while(timer<100) repeat beep();
4) repeat beep() while(timer < 100)
5) do beep() if (timer < 1000)

seem ok, this 2 and 3 difference is intended that if checks only once then repeat, while 3 checks in each loop turn

the 5 is not loop itself but rightside if
it is it that has its condithion written just in rightside

do printf("kotek") if(toaday==sunday)

that cou be possibly useful though om not sure if that if should be not a bit diffrent keyword to secure no confusion

the problem is those forms aboe look good
but in the case of most popular for int i = 0 to 100 id dont look to much good

maybe this means that there is an eed of saying about normal loops and compact loops like c-for is compact-loop (and
possibly also very compact loops which i want to heve for long time like fori(100)
iterates on i o to 100)

[Siri Cruise]

In article <356594ad-03a8-4e4a...@googlegroups.com>,
fir <profes...@gmail.com> wrote:

> W dniu poniedzia©©ek, 31 grudnia 2018 14:13:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Siri Cruise

#include <stdio.h>
int main (int argc, char **argv) {
for (int j=0; j<10; j++)
for (int k=0; !k; break)
printf("%d %d\n", j, k);
return 0;
}
t.c: In function ‘main’:
t.c:4: error: expected expression before ‘break’

===========================================

#include <stdio.h>
int main (int argc, char **argv) {
for (int j=0; j<10; j++)
for (int k=0; !k; ({break; k=1;}))
printf("%d %d\n", j, k);
return 0;
}
@ a.out
0 0

[fir]

seems like its idiotic error, yet if you may dodge it by writing something more stupid, as accepting ({break; k=1;}) where break; causes error seems much stupid

ah, i see that break was counted probably as external loop break (?) not internal loop one. lol that seems language or compiler error, this break logically belongs to internal loop imo

[fir]

> if (some_test1)
> in { setup_for_test1 }
> out { cleanup_for_test1 }
> enter { related_code_if_block_entered1 }

> {
> }

this scheme seems idiotic but yhe fact is c uses it (in a form of
for(setup; condition; final)

to add some compactness to loops that without that are not so quick-for -eye

fact tjat c uses it dont mean hovever it is not idiotic, imo c needs normal not-compact loops and possibly need extremally compact loops like
for i(100) {} or maybe even shorter

yhis middle form hovever is some option,
named parts are also some option though knowing hodgin crappy language i rather see ho disaster he can build with that (yuck)

[fir]

yet i repeat what i said, which is quite banal, normal sentence but its just important: when making language you may do a lot of things, (more or less good or idiotic ) trouble is not to put there what comes to sombodys mind but only put those absolute top good ones, speaking rougly (i mean those to which you or anybody cant just find better, also speaking roughly ).. hodgin way is to put any insane crap that he produces on big stream

hovever, remembering the above, some not absolutely downnish ideas can be considered as an ideas and matter on thinking and there is some value in seeing those options (buit still you would better know whats good and why,
and whats bad and whu, too ;c)

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 12/31/2018 9:52 AM, fir wrote:
>> if (some_test1)
>> in { setup_for_test1 }
>> out { cleanup_for_test1 }
>> enter { related_code_if_block_entered1 }
>> {
>> }
>

> this scheme seems idiotic...

The code would actually be used with more lines of code, conventionally.
I'm also not sure I like the syntax. It's confusing with many { and }
characters, even with indentation. I'll have to think about it.

One thing CAlive does allow is the use of { or {{ for every block, along
with its mated } and }}. Maybe this syntax would work better. CAlive
already uses the | prefix characters for related header information:

if (some_test1)
|
| in {{
| // Multiple lines of code here
|
| }} out {{
| // Multiple lines of code here
|
| }} enter {{
| // Multiple lines of code here
| }}
|
{
// Normal if code goes here
}

Makes it clearer at least, especially if the editor performs some
special syntax highlighting on the {{ and }} different than the {
and }.

CAlive currently uses:

function name
| params int a, int b
| returns int r
{
r = 42;
}

It allows you to define things related to the above thing using
the | character. CAlive also allows the ability to relate code
using the ||| symbol, which is ignored as a whitespace, but allows
the grouping of things in source code visually:

if (state == HALT_BUTTON_PRESSED)
{
||||||||||
|||| Stop -- Stop current operations
||| reset_controller();
||| reinitialize_controller();
||| home_controller();


||||||||||
|||| Flush -- Make sure no half-completed instructions are in queue
||| flush_communications();
||| send_ready_signal();


||||||||||
|||| Reset -- Reset the control panel
||| acknowledge_state();
||| clear_halt_button_flag();
}

This use of ||| is a visual syntax-in-text-file format of a
feature my editor will introduce, which is the ability to code
horizontally, rather than just vertically. These lines group
things into logical casks, which are then manipulated on-screen
like this, with the ability to collapse them into operations:

|||||||||| _______\ |||||||||| _______\ ||||||||||
|||| Stop / |||| Flush / |||| Reset

They appear visually, and are linked by lines showing flow. It
allows much more compact coding on-screen, with more information,
and it's more visual. You can single-step debug at this level
without going into the details of the related code lines.

In addition, I've introduced something called side coding, which
allows you to code a line like this:

<left>Something<sc>if (state == HALT_BUTTON_PRESSED)<right>Something else

It then translates it logically to this:

Left Source Code Right
------------+-----------------------------------------+---------------
|Something | if (state == HALT_BUTTON_PRESSED) | Something else

So you can have your source-code logically interspersed with any kind
of comments, compiler-injected notes, etc. They do not affect the
actual code being compiled, but they augment what the developer sees.
The same kind of ||| block grouping can be used there as well.

-----
As I say, CAlive is a comprehensive design, and it's for a new type
of developer. It will take the way they think about coding to a new
level. It will still provide C/C++-like abilities, but it will take
the developer experience to a whole new level.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[fir]

W dniu poniedziałek, 31 grudnia 2018 15:52:44 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał:
>

> yhe fact is c uses it (in a form of
> for(setup; condition; final)
>

yet there is potential optio0ns to allowing defining some kind of generalized functions
that could take blocks of code (that direction was revently written on clc)

this way one could fedine sometjing like for itself

void deformed_for(block setup;
block condition;
block loop_epilogue) { block content; } :
{
steup;
while(condition)
{
content;
loop_epilogue;
}

}

this might be than maybe more sane (maybe)

[thsi above only being draft as it would need toi be done probably slightly different, but this is an option and maybe could have some interesting usaecases, im not sure)

[David Brown]

On 31/12/2018 05:21, Ralf Goertz wrote:
> Am Sun, 30 Dec 2018 15:23:53 +0100
> schrieb David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no>:
>
>> On 30/12/2018 06:12, Ralf Goertz wrote:
>>> Am Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:04:28 -0700
>>> schrieb rbowman <bow...@montana.com>:
>>>
>>>> Rather like the grammarian’s damnation of ending a sentence with a
>>>> preposition it resulted in some of the most convoluted messes I've
>>>> ever seen.
>>>
>>> Although I have been communicating in English for quite a while
>>> now, I heard about that damnation only rather recently. Does that
>>> mean you are not supposed to say "What are you looking for?" but
>>> should say "For what are you looking?" instead?
>>
>> Yes, that is correct.
>
> Hm, grammar girl seems to have a different opinion: https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/ending-a-sentence-with-a-preposition
>

That article seems to be saying two things - both of which are
reasonable, IMHO. One is that it is common usage - and therefore part
of the language - to end a sentence in a preposition when the
alternative is particularly awkward. The other is that in some cases,
the preposition is part of a phrase, rather than joining two things.

What you really should avoid is prepositions that are either
superfluous, or leave information unsaid. For example, "I hadn't read
about that before". The "before" means nothing here - before what? The
sentence would make more sense as simply "I hadn't read about that", or
alternatively with more information, such as "I hadn't read about that
before yesterday".

> BTW (to answer Stefan's SCNR), this is exactly the reason why I asked my
> question here in a programming newsgroup. Here, there are many
> intelligent native speakers whose focus is probably not grammar. Their
> gut feeling about their language is quite a valuable input for me to
> develop my own gut feeling. Although I must admit that I will never have
> as strong a gut feeling for English as I have for my own language.
>
>>> The former /feels/ correct because I hear it
>>> very often, I guess more often than the latter. But then I also very
>>> often hear "What do you got?" in American TV shows which feels like
>>> a horrible abuse of language…
>>>
>>
>> It is a matter of philosophical debate whether the kind of
>> grammatical abuse found on American TV shows is ignorance, laziness,
>> or the evolution of language.
>>
>> "To boldly go where no man has gone before" - is it bad grammar, or
>> has it changed the language?
>
> It took my quite a while to figure out what could be objectionable in
> that sentence. It seems to be the rule not to split an infinitive, a
> rule about which I had no idea two days ago. (Apart from "Manner, space,
> time makes your English fine" I don't remember being taught any style
> rule at school.) Interestingly, for me both ending with a preposition
> and splitting an infinitive feel very "English" probably because there
> is no way you could use either construct in a German sentence.
>

English grammar is based on a mix of Germanic and Latin grammar, with
some of its own variations. In both German and Latin (AFAIK)
infinitives are formed by verb endings - there is no way to "split"
them. This may be the origin of the rule in English.

[rbowman]

On 12/30/2018 09:21 PM, Ralf Goertz wrote:
> Interestingly, for me both ending with a preposition
> and splitting an infinitive feel very "English" probably because there
> is no way you could use either construct in a German sentence.

Is 'Wo gehen Sie hin?' or splitting 'davon' acceptable? I have the
opposite problem to you. When I read Schwedenkrimi I'm not sure if it is
acceptable current usage or just crime novel slang. ( Scandinavian crime
novels usually are translated to German before English, if they ever do
get translated.)

[rbowman]

On 12/30/2018 09:43 PM, Ralf Goertz wrote:
> Really? Fraktur was not taught at my time in German schools, I had to
> learn it on my own and I only did it because we had some old books I
> wanted to read.

The US schools hadn't quite caught up in the early '60s. The copies of
'Emil und die Detektive' we had might have been pre-war. Our teachers
were in their '50s so they were definitely pre-war.

In college the focus was on technical literature and that was all in
Roman type. The assumption for engineering students was a lot of
literature would be published in German. The reality, for better or
worse, was German engineers and scientists learned English.

[rbowman]

On 12/31/2018 10:09 AM, David Brown wrote:
> English grammar is based on a mix of Germanic and Latin grammar, with
> some of its own variations. In both German and Latin (AFAIK)
> infinitives are formed by verb endings - there is no way to "split"
> them. This may be the origin of the rule in English.

Not necessarily infinitives but German makes an art form of verb
splitting. In a complex sentence the main bodies of the verbs pile up at
the end, with the tense signifier as a place holder in the sentence.

In programming speak you push a bunch of qualifiers on the stack and
then pop them off at the end to figure out who was doing what when.

It's been a long time but iirc Latin has a complex system for forming
infinitives depending on the tense and voice.

[Ralf Goertz]

Am Mon, 31 Dec 2018 11:50:39 -0700
schrieb rbowman <bow...@montana.com>:

> On 12/30/2018 09:21 PM, Ralf Goertz wrote:
> > Interestingly, for me both ending with a preposition
> > and splitting an infinitive feel very "English" probably because
> > there is no way you could use either construct in a German
> > sentence.
>
> Is 'Wo gehen Sie hin?' or splitting 'davon' acceptable?

Okay, I didn't think about that (spitting). "Wo gehen Sie hin" is
acceptable but "Wohin gehen Sie?" is slightly better imho. "Davon" like
"dafür" should not be splitted I think. "Da habe ich genug von" is
awkward. The only exception would be the very colloquial "Da nich(t)
für" meaning "Don't mention it" as a reply after being thanked for
something. But that deliberately plays with the awkwardness of the word
order/splitting which is why one would also normally omit the t.

> I have the opposite problem to you. When I read Schwedenkrimi I'm not
> sure if it is acceptable current usage or just crime novel slang.

> (Scandinavian crime novels usually are translated to German before

> English, if they ever do get translated.)

I'm not familiar with that particular genre but the word itself is just
used to stress the fact that Swedish crime novels are often dark or deep
and sometimes brutal. I think it's mainly used in marketing as some kind
of seal of quality.

[Ralf Goertz]

Am Mon, 31 Dec 2018 18:09:51 +0100

schrieb David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no>:

> On 31/12/2018 05:21, Ralf Goertz wrote:
>> Am Sun, 30 Dec 2018 15:23:53 +0100 schrieb David Brown
>> <david...@hesbynett.no>:

>>> "To boldly go where no man has gone before" - is it bad grammar, or
>>> has it changed the language?
>>
>> It took my quite a while to figure out what could be objectionable in
>> that sentence. It seems to be the rule not to split an infinitive, a
>> rule about which I had no idea two days ago. (Apart from "Manner,
>> space, time makes your English fine" I don't remember being taught
>> any style rule at school.) Interestingly, for me both ending with a
>> preposition and splitting an infinitive feel very "English" probably
>> because there is no way you could use either construct in a German
>> sentence.
>
> English grammar is based on a mix of Germanic and Latin grammar, with
> some of its own variations. In both German and Latin (AFAIK)
> infinitives are formed by verb endings - there is no way to "split"
> them. This may be the origin of the rule in English.

Correct, German infinitives always end in -en with the (only?) exception
of "sein" ("to be") and usually differ frome their inflections. But
there is a language construct called (extended) infinitive with
"zu" ("to"). With that the famous Star Strek slogan could be translated
"(Sie zogen aus, um) mutig dahin /zu gehen/, wohin niemand jemals
gegangen ist." The "zu" in that case is mandatory and there is no way
you could ever put anything between "zu" and "gehen" let alone "mutig".
On the other hand I would have considered "to boldly go" very good
English a few days ago…

[Ralf Goertz]

Am Tue, 1 Jan 2019 11:43:51 +0100
schrieb Ralf Goertz <m...@myprovider.invalid>:

> Am Mon, 31 Dec 2018 11:50:39 -0700
> schrieb rbowman <bow...@montana.com>:
>
> > On 12/30/2018 09:21 PM, Ralf Goertz wrote:
> > > Interestingly, for me both ending with a preposition
> > > and splitting an infinitive feel very "English" probably because
> > > there is no way you could use either construct in a German
> > > sentence.
> >
> > Is 'Wo gehen Sie hin?' or splitting 'davon' acceptable?
>
> Okay, I didn't think about that (spitting). "Wo gehen Sie hin" is
> acceptable but "Wohin gehen Sie?" is slightly better imho.

On second thought I doubt that this really is an example of splitting
"wohin" but of "hingehen". It is not so obvious here because of the
ambiguity. But when you say "Gehen Sie hin!" and the similar "Sie sollen
hingehen!" there is no "wo" the "hin" could have been cut from (from
which the "hin" could have been cut ;-)). Furthermore, according to the
Duden neither "hin" nor "davon" are prepositions but adverbs. So I guess
my initial assumption of no preposition in the end of a German sentence
still holds.

PS: I probably misread your entire post. Now I think you asked when (or
whether at all) it is acceptable to split verbs in German. Short answer:
as with the piling up of verbs in the end of a subordinate sentence or
one that is in present or past perfect it is more common to have to
split composite verbs. But not always. You say "Er /trennt/ die
Briefmarke (vom Brief) /ab/" but "Er /durchtrennt/ die Stromleitungen"…

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <20190101142...@assi.fritz.box>,
Ralf Goertz <m...@myprovider.invalid> wrote:
...

>On second thought I doubt that this really is an example of splitting
>"wohin" but of "hingehen". It is not so obvious here because of the
>ambiguity. But when you say "Gehen Sie hin!" and the similar "Sie sollen
>hingehen!" there is no "wo" the "hin" could have been cut from (from
>which the "hin" could have been cut ;-)). Furthermore, according to the
>Duden neither "hin" nor "davon" are prepositions but adverbs. So I guess
>my initial assumption of no preposition in the end of a German sentence
>still holds.
>
>PS: I probably misread your entire post. Now I think you asked when (or
>whether at all) it is acceptable to split verbs in German. Short answer:
>as with the piling up of verbs in the end of a subordinate sentence or
>one that is in present or past perfect it is more common to have to
>split composite verbs. But not always. You say "Er /trennt/ die
>Briefmarke (vom Brief) /ab/" but "Er /durchtrennt/ die Stromleitungen"…
>

Subject line fixed.

You may continue from here. Thank you.

--
"Women should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They should be
segregated because they are the cause of unholy erections in holy men.

-- Saint Augustine (354-430) --

[rbowman]

On 01/01/2019 03:43 AM, Ralf Goertz wrote:
> I'm not familiar with that particular genre but the word itself is just
> used to stress the fact that Swedish crime novels are often dark or deep
> and sometimes brutal. I think it's mainly used in marketing as some kind
> of seal of quality.

Some of the Swedish have become popular. Henning Mankel's 'Wallender'
detective stories might have been the first. Stieg Larsson's Millenium
series also became popular. The Swedes filmed all three books of the
trilogy. The first, 'The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo' was redone in
English but the other two never made it. A sequel that was written after
Larsson died was filmed in English instead and just released.

Åsa Larsson (no relation) has some books translated into English but
they generally make it into German first. Thanks to Amazon they are
available.

If nothing else people in the US are getting more exposure to Europe
rather than just the UK. 'Deutschland 83' was a joint production and was
shown on US TV in German with subtitles. I think it was more popular in
the US than in Germany. Perhaps the DDR and Stasi skeletons aren't
buried deep enough yet.

[rbowman]

On 01/01/2019 06:27 AM, Ralf Goertz wrote:
> PS: I probably misread your entire post. Now I think you asked when (or
> whether at all) it is acceptable to split verbs in German. Short answer:
> as with the piling up of verbs in the end of a subordinate sentence or
> one that is in present or past perfect it is more common to have to
> split composite verbs. But not always. You say "Er /trennt/ die
> Briefmarke (vom Brief) /ab/" but "Er /durchtrennt/ die Stromleitungen"…
>

'But not always' is the motto of English. I am glad I learned it from
the cradle but even then some of the current common usage seems strange.
I often hear 'Do you want to go with?' and wait for the rest of the
sentence.

[Ralf Goertz]

Am Tue, 1 Jan 2019 10:57:07 -0700
schrieb rbowman <bow...@montana.com>:

> If nothing else people in the US are getting more exposure to Europe
> rather than just the UK. 'Deutschland 83' was a joint production and
> was shown on US TV in German with subtitles. I think it was more
> popular in the US than in Germany. Perhaps the DDR and Stasi skeletons
> aren't buried deep enough yet.

Oh boy. We are really getting off topic here. But I need to respond to
that. There are quite a few movies about the former DDR or the change
its people had to undergo after the wall came down. "Sonnenallee" comes
to mind for instance. I never watch them. I tried to watch "Deutschland
83" but I stopped after the first episode. Why? Because I don't need to.
I think it's great that these movies/shows exist but I don't need to
watch them, because I lived them. Let people outside Germany watch them
and learn about the indoctrination that took place. (It always sends
shivers down my spine to watch this North Korean News announcer [is it
always the same woman?] when she is reports the great achievements of
the ruling party or its leader. Of course, I don't understand anything
and our cultures are very different but the way she talks reminds me of
cult leaders [or Rick] and I have become very allergic to that.) The
pretending that was necessary to survive (maybe not literally but at
least socially) both amazes me (How can people do that?) and disgusts
me (How could I have done it?). And I really don't want to be reminded
of it so I am not particularly inclined to watch. I am so glad that
that is over now. I don't know how many people here feel the same, but
I wouldn't conclude from the fact that this show was a greater success
in the US than in Germany that the skeletons aren't buried deep enough.
I am much more concerned about the fact that the refugee crisis in 2015
flushed the scum back up that I had hoped to stay buried after WWII.
Having an American president acting the way he does certainly doesn't
help…

[rbowman]

On 01/01/2019 01:18 PM, Ralf Goertz wrote:
> Oh boy. We are really getting off topic here. But I need to respond to
> that. There are quite a few movies about the former DDR or the change
> its people had to undergo after the wall came down. "Sonnenallee" comes
> to mind for instance. I never watch them. I tried to watch "Deutschland
> 83" but I stopped after the first episode. Why? Because I don't need to.

Yeah, I'm an old fart and tend to wander. About time to get back to C.
All I can say is very few lessons have been learned, at least in the US.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <20181230061...@assi.fritz.box>,

Ralf Goertz <m...@myprovider.invalid> wrote:

> Am Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:04:28 -0700
> schrieb rbowman <bow...@montana.com>:
>
> > Rather like the grammarian’s damnation of ending a sentence with a
> > preposition it resulted in some of the most convoluted messes I've
> > ever seen.
>
> Although I have been communicating in English for quite a while now, I
> heard about that damnation only rather recently. Does that mean you are
> not supposed to say "What are you looking for?" but should say "For what

> are you looking?" instead? The former /feels/ correct because I hear it

'A preposition is something you shouldn't end a sentence with.'

For a long time latin was regarded as the best language, and language loons
tried to force english to be more like latin. This was part of that.

The former is preferred among native speakers so that makes it correct.

English has distinct features from latin. It has very little morphology: it
makes sense in latin to distinguish nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc, but in
english they are essentially the same thing. And what are called prepositions in
latin are closer to what are called adjectives or adverb.

Put the cat OUT.
Felix was OUTed as a cat.
Cats know the ins and OUTs of apartment life.
That green cat stands OUT.
That white cat is OUTstanding.
OUT! OUT! damned Spot; let Felix in.
The cat is OUTside.

> very often, I guess more often than the latter. But then I also very
> often hear "What do you got?" in American TV shows which feels like a
> horrible abuse of language…

Semantic shifts, a normal part of language evolution. 'get' is expanding into
the semantic space of 'have'. A knight in shining armour started as a cniht in
his master's servitude. It happens.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <q0akdp$74k$1...@dont-email.me>, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no>
wrote:

> "To boldly go where no man has gone before" - is it bad grammar, or has
> it changed the language?

It's been part of english for centuries. This was another silly attempt to force
latin grammar on english.

[rbowman]

On 01/01/2019 05:27 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> Semantic shifts, a normal part of language evolution. 'get' is expanding into
> the semantic space of 'have'. A knight in shining armour started as a cniht in
> his master's servitude. It happens.

I'm reading a study that touches in part on linguistic paleontology as
regards the differentiation of languages from a hypothetical proto
Indo-European root. If humans don't self destruct in 2000 years I wonder
what future linguists will have to work with?

In a way C is the proto programming language. There certainly are other
lineages but its influence is apparent in many newer languages.

[Louis Krupp]

There are programmers alive today who have written code in languages
that predated -- and formed a basis for -- C. ALGOL is one of them,
and ALGOL in turn was influenced by FORTRAN. And the modern version,
spelled Fortran, is still in use.

Louis

[Öö Tiib]

On Monday, 31 December 2018 13:19:16 UTC+2, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 5:33:48 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Monday, 31 December 2018 11:46:07 UTC+2, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 4:19:27 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > > > On Monday, 31 December 2018 06:25:46 UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > > In new years 2019, will CAlive be in the form of source code, everything
> > > > > in a single directory, or an install program?
> > > >
> > > > At 15. October he said that he will have some sort of useful fruit "in a
> > > > year or so".
> > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.lang.c++/fmRcHJQP8T8/lS2LwMA3BgAJ
> > >
> > > I am not on a schedule for release as by date. I am on a schedule
> > > for release as by steps accomplished, and goals / milestones achieved.
> > >
> > > My goals are to do things right, and to not skimp or sacrifice aspects
> > > of design for release dates. I am not release date driven.
> > >
> > > I've had something happen in my life this month which will alter
> > > my plans by at least six months. We'll see how it ultimately impacts
> > > my schedule.
> >
> > So I thought. IOW there will be no fruit from you in foreseeable future.
>
> You see what your own "eyes" generate for you, not the truth.
>
> > BTW "schedule" is basic time-management tool and without any
> > times set it sounds sort of like nonsense.
>
> It's the difference between a business model and a task model. I had
> a time schedule associated with my task schedule, but life things come
> up unexpectedly. This one is of my own doing and I have needs to
> address it ahead of other things.

Then perhaps concentrate on addressing what you need to. Ideas about
oddball keywords, blocks, operators and punctuations are likely worthless
in that other context.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <7345f1c7-b181-4258...@googlegroups.com>,
ร รถ Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> wrote:
...

>> It's the difference between a business model and a task model. I had
>> a time schedule associated with my task schedule, but life things come
>> up unexpectedly. This one is of my own doing and I have needs to
>> address it ahead of other things.
>
>Then perhaps concentrate on addressing what you need to. Ideas about
>oddball keywords, blocks, operators and punctuations are likely worthless
>in that other context.

You totally misunderstand Rick's outlook on life.

His programming projects are just like his religion. The idea is to keep
talking about it - keeping hyping it up - rather than to provide anything
that is actually tangible. I've worked in companies (*) that have had this
same outlook - keep talking - keep inflating it - keep telling everybody
how great it will be - but never actually produce anything. Because if you
ever produce anything tangible, it will a) never be as good as what you're
talking about and b) actually never be any good at all.

It is no coincidence that his programming is just like his religion.
It is no coincidence that the same sort of guy who goes in for the
religious nonsense he peddles is the sort of guy who does this pie-in-the-sky
programming. It's all the same scam.

Think about typical religions. Think about what they talk about vs. what
they actually produce. The difference couldn't be starker.

Like with Rick's programming, they (religious leaders) have to keep coming
up with new shit. If they ever stop coming up with new shit to keep
themselves in the headlines, the whole enterprise comes crashing down.
There's nothing as uninteresting as yesterday's garbage. You've got to
keep coming up with new garbage to keep the sheep enthralled.

Footnotes:
(*) A couple of notes re: companies:
1) You'd be amazed how long you can keep this scam going.
2) To be fair, all companies have to do some of this. That is, hyping the
"next big thing" - that is "just around the corner" - in order to keep
people interested. But realistic companies try to keep it under control,
and be sure to provide their customers with usable, tangible, products in
the here and now. Neither religion nor Rick Hodgin, Inc., ever do.

--
When I was growing up we called them "retards", but that's not PC anymore.
Now, we just call them "Trump Voters".

The question is, of course, how much longer it will be until that term is also un-PC.

[Ian Collins]

On 30/12/2018 04:42, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> I've had the idea for an "if cargo" block. It is a standard if {}
> block, but one containing additional cargo prefixed by in, out, and
> enter keywords, to be contained within each if clause to run before,
> after, and when entering the if statement.
>
> The enter clause is given specifically to relate to something that
> should be done, possibly to undo something done in the in clause,
> including possibly calling the out clause to undo that setup, and
> prepare it for whatever other code is needed within the block.

Why are proposing (at lest in c.l.c++) an unpleasant replacement for
something the language already supports?

--
Ian.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

I am unaware of its existence. Enlighten me, sir Ian.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Rick C. Hodgin]

[crickets]

Cluck cluck cluck cluck.. :-)

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Öö Tiib]

On Wednesday, 2 January 2019 20:09:40 UTC+2, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <7345f1c7-b181-4258...@googlegroups.com>,

> Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> wrote:
> ...
> >> It's the difference between a business model and a task model. I had
> >> a time schedule associated with my task schedule, but life things come
> >> up unexpectedly. This one is of my own doing and I have needs to
> >> address it ahead of other things.
> >
> >Then perhaps concentrate on addressing what you need to. Ideas about
> >oddball keywords, blocks, operators and punctuations are likely worthless
> >in that other context.
>
> You totally misunderstand Rick's outlook on life.
>
> His programming projects are just like his religion. The idea is to keep
> talking about it - keeping hyping it up - rather than to provide anything
> that is actually tangible. I've worked in companies (*) that have had this
> same outlook - keep talking - keep inflating it - keep telling everybody
> how great it will be - but never actually produce anything. Because if you
> ever produce anything tangible, it will a) never be as good as what you're
> talking about and b) actually never be any good at all.

I wasn't about his life philosophy. I was merely suggesting that if he really
has serious things to deal with then it is counter-intuitive to hang here
discussing his CAlive constructs.

> It is no coincidence that his programming is just like his religion.
> It is no coincidence that the same sort of guy who goes in for the
> religious nonsense he peddles is the sort of guy who does this pie-in-the-sky
> programming. It's all the same scam.
>
> Think about typical religions. Think about what they talk about vs. what
> they actually produce. The difference couldn't be starker.

I live in Estonia. Here religious organizations actually are not
annoying at all. They try to be nice, do organize various acts
of charity towards poor and events of culture like classical
music concerts in churches. It works with some (less than
third of people here define themselves as believers of
something) but most people are irreligious. Our world is
ruled by couple large countries and those are usually lead
by utter assholes. Fortunately mortal but then replaced by
different assholes. Believing anything else is likely silly and
possibly existentially dangerous superstition.

> Like with Rick's programming, they (religious leaders) have to keep coming
> up with new shit. If they ever stop coming up with new shit to keep
> themselves in the headlines, the whole enterprise comes crashing down.
> There's nothing as uninteresting as yesterday's garbage. You've got to
> keep coming up with new garbage to keep the sheep enthralled.

Indeed, every organization that wants to be popular should have
some sort of (at least semi-plausible) vision. Rick is often like
clumsy parody of that. His blocks in OP of this thread sound
like bad parody of similar language features, for example (quite
sensible) "guard" and "defer" blocks of Swift. So if he has some
serious issues to solve then better he does not waste time on
such hobbies too much.

[Ian Collins]

Fibble as already answered this in his own inimitable style.

Something like this will do what you want in C++:

void f(bool some_test1)
{
struct T1
{
bool cleaned {};
T1() {} // setup_for_test1
~T1() { if (!cleaned) cleanup(); } // cleanup_for_test1
void related_code_if_block_entered() {}
void cleanup() { cleaned = true; }
};

T1 t1;

if (some_test1)
{
t1.related_code_if_block_entered();
// Code1 here for this test passing
}
else
{
t1.cleanup();
}
}

--
Ian.

[Ian Collins]

On 03/01/2019 10:29, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On 1/2/2019 3:54 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> On 1/2/2019 3:50 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> Why are proposing (at lest in c.l.c++) an unpleasant replacement for
>>> something the language already supports?
>>
>> I am unaware of its existence.  Enlighten me, sir Ian.
>
> [crickets]

Cricket, singular. One of the joys of summer.

--
Ian

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Man, one time in particular, I saw a cluster of crickets being invaded
by a bunch of ravenous ants in South Lake Tahoe. Each ant was around a
half inch in length. The crickets were fish bait anyway, so their
enclosure had holes in it for ventilation. The damn ants raided it. By
the time I noticed the attack, they were tearing cricket limbs off to
immobilize them, many dead: Terrible. There was another victim, a large
june bug was being carefully dissected by the riled up ants. Should ants
be sent to hell: Burned forever with a magnifying glass, perhaps even a
solar furnace? ;^)

https://youtu.be/KAiVUn_ukdI
(yellow crazy ants murdering crabs!)

wow.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 1/3/2019 5:10 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 03/01/2019 09:54, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> On 1/2/2019 3:50 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> Why are proposing (at lest in c.l.c++) an unpleasant replacement for
>>> something the language already supports?
>>
>> I am unaware of its existence.  Enlighten me, sir Ian.
>

> Something like this will do what you want in C++:
>
> void f(bool some_test1)
> {
>   struct T1
>   {
>     bool cleaned {};
>     T1() {}   // setup_for_test1
>     ~T1() { if (!cleaned) cleanup(); }  // cleanup_for_test1
>     void related_code_if_block_entered() {}
>     void cleanup() { cleaned = true; }
>   };
>
>   T1 t1;
>
>   if (some_test1)
>   {
>     t1.related_code_if_block_entered();
>     // Code1 here for this test passing
>   }
>   else
>   {
>     t1.cleanup();
>   }
> }

Okay. Really? A non-unpleasant workaround? :-)

There are existing ways to make almost anything work. Out of
curiosity, how do you get your non-unpleasant solution to work
on multi-conditional if..else if..else blocks?

if (test1) in { ... }
out { ... }
enter { ... }
{
// Code here

} else if (test2) in { ... }
out { ... }
enter { ... }
{
// Code here

} else if (test3) in { ... }
out { ... }
enter { ... }

{
// Code here

} else in { ... }
out { ... }
enter { ... }

{
// Code here
}

And, since the code is encapsulated in its intended and purposeful
meaning by location, does your solution have the ability to collapse
the in/out/enter block code so they appear like this until expanded
or needed?

if (test1) +in +out +enter
{
// Code here

} else if (test2) +in +out +enter {
// Code here

} else if (test3) +in +out +enter {
// Code here

} else +in +out +enter {
// Code here
}

I would expect a reply like your from Fibble. But, I do not expect
it from you. You are a superior developer in my estimation, though
I may be wrong in that assessment, but given some of your replies
over time I hold you in a regard high enough to see the difference
between Fibble's solution, and the one I propose.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Never played it. Just below 0C here. I, of course, was referring to
the noise made when no other sounds are being heard. Just the crickets
making noise in the background.

Awkward silence cricket sound:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNGzaeLJrNU

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Chris M. Thomasson]

For some reason, this reminds me of ScopeGuard. Fwiw, here is an old
post on drdobbs:

http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/generic-change-the-way-you-write-excepti/184403758

[Mr Flibble]

I believe my answer to which Ian refers is that you are clueless about
using modern C++ (in this case RAII and scoped-bound resource management)
so you invent all this unnecessary nonsense instead to wallpaper over your
ignorance.

/Flibble

--
“You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais

“I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who
doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” –
Ricky Gervais

"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery
that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a
world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."

[fir]

the prbem with dick is lika a problem with heay drunkard in the tavern

that sits next to you and began to share imbecile drunkard stories (like on jesus or CrapAlive)

as drunkard is just drunkard, to much imbecile to be turned into some sober man

what can be done is to kick this imbecile out with your own leg, calling the police, leave the tavern, that sort of things

drunkards like that are to stupid when they found a place to parasite and flow out thier imbecilism they will do that.. the problem would be mended if normal people would get so much responsible to ignore this imbeclie to make this idiot
just bored to sit there, in that tavern

sadly such half-trolls as some here dont seem to bother and feed this idiot with attention discussing 'programming' with imbecile or 'religion' with an idiot

this is sad reality of usenet (sporadic exreme imbeciles mixed with some amount od half-idiots mixed with some dose of people who are relatively more sober but apatic as to troll spamars like hodgin...and imbecilism goes on, consuming 70% of trafic on imbecile hodgin pathological affairs.. get sober poor people)

[Queequeg]

fir <profes...@gmail.com> wrote:

> dik is rather clasic case of idiot posessed by devil

What kind of moron quotes 88 lines of text to add only two?

--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

[David Brown]

On 03/01/2019 23:47, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On 1/3/2019 5:10 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 03/01/2019 09:54, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> On 1/2/2019 3:50 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>>>> Why are proposing (at lest in c.l.c++) an unpleasant replacement for
>>>> something the language already supports?
>>>
>>> I am unaware of its existence.  Enlighten me, sir Ian.
>>
>> Something like this will do what you want in C++:
>>
>> void f(bool some_test1)
>> {
>>    struct T1
>>    {
>>      bool cleaned {};
>>      T1() {}   // setup_for_test1
>>      ~T1() { if (!cleaned) cleanup(); }  // cleanup_for_test1
>>      void related_code_if_block_entered() {}
>>      void cleanup() { cleaned = true; }
>>    };
>>
>>    T1 t1;
>>
>>    if (some_test1)
>>    {
>>      t1.related_code_if_block_entered();
>>      // Code1 here for this test passing
>>    }
>>    else
>>    {
>>      t1.cleanup();
>>    }
>> }
>
> Okay.  Really?  A non-unpleasant workaround? :-)

In practice, you would do this by defining a class template, probably
using lambdas for the code to be called on cleanup. Then the
boilerplate code could be kept separate from the function that uses it.

>
> There are existing ways to make almost anything work.  Out of
> curiosity, how do you get your non-unpleasant solution to work
> on multi-conditional if..else if..else blocks?
>
>     if (test1) in { ... }
>               out { ... }
>             enter { ... }
>     {
>         // Code here
>
>     } else if (test2) in { ... }
>                       out { ... }
>                     enter { ... }
>     {
>         // Code here
>
>     } else if (test3) in { ... }
>                       out { ... }
>                     enter { ... }
>
>     {
>         // Code here
>
>     } else in { ... }
>           out { ... }
>         enter { ... }
>
>     {
>        // Code here
>     }

Out of curiosity - in what contexts would you actually /want/ something
like that? I have heard your mantra before - you are just providing the
tools. But do you ever stop and think about whether a tool is useful,
or if people would want it? Would any code be improved when the
programmer can use your combined hammer-screwdriver-torch-spade-brush tool?

Having a way to specify cleanup code that is always called, no matter
what path is taken through a function - /that/ is useful. C++ RAII
gives you that. D gives you that.
<https://dlang.org/spec/statement.html#ScopeGuardStatement> Java gives
you it. But C does not (discounting gcc extensions).

There are various ways such a feature could be implemented - you should
pick /one/ method that suits the style of CAlive, and use that.

The rest of your "in", "out", "enter" stuff is just a matter of
re-arranging the code in a non-sequential way. I am at a loss to see
how it helps anyone - but if you really think it does help, don't you
already have your "casks" to do that job?


I believe you would be much better off if you tried to think what coding
problems you are trying to solve, and start from those - start from the
problems and challenges, rather than starting from a solution. Much of
your CAlive ideas sound like you have figured out the 42 but you have no
idea what the question is. This leaves the useful ideas (as there are
some) hidden amongst a jumble of new syntax, new operators, new keywords
that are far more than anyone would ever remember or want to use in a
programming language.

[fir]

W dniu piątek, 4 stycznia 2019 09:51:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Queequeg napisał:
> fir <profes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > dik is rather clasic case of idiot posessed by devil
>
> What kind of moron quotes 88 lines of text to add only two?
>

hevy idiots are who ask that question, who show kinda imbecile thinking with no shame

[fir]

note if youre discusing wih spamer you harm this group... even if you discus what is on the edge of something 'on topic'.. the more poroblem here is that various hodgin idiotisms consume 70% of
usenet trafic (in the 2 groups i visit)
and you increase it into 71%

soon this groups could change name
"stupid idiot dick and his religious and crap-alive affairs"

[fir]

idiots are those who show kinda imbecile thinking with no shame

(youre good example, always imbecile and always mentally reduced ... some people know that ;c)

[fir]

W dniu poniedziałek, 31 grudnia 2018 13:10:26 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał:
>
> do
>
> repeat
>

thi idea seem good but the trouble is to chose right words also such that could be generalized for ore loop demands (and i dont get that )

note yet btw some idea, related to idea of rightside if:

rightside if is just if whose condition is placed rightside instead of leftsile

if(i>1) printf("kotek");

printf("kotek") if(i>1);

is like teh same thiugh changes readabiity (imo may increase it)

related ide is nack if, say it work this way that it gioes back and executi its
block from the left again

printf("kotek") bif(i>1);

that would make loop, its weird
idea to use it but can be considered

some adbantage is you could combine ifs and backifs in various ways

if(a) {f00() bif(b) }

enters if a then loops if b

(if(a) f00();) bif(b);

loops if b but goes to f00 only if a


howewer wonder for what that could be suable looks weird, but maybe helps to explore various conditions of conditional loops (and it seems there are numerous)

this if is btw same as this back-while

other options are yet for examble that backif but this one who not executes its block until bif itself is reached


{ .... } bif2(x)

if not x nothing will be executed

also there are possible more wiird construct like

if2(x)
{
///.....

// x=0;
}

such if testes x at the exit of its block, if x is false then do not executes its block (works like do notking, lol)
(seems like silly idea but its imaginable)

[fir]

W dniu piątek, 4 stycznia 2019 16:09:31 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał:
>
> also there are possible more wiird construct like
>
> if2(x)
> {
> ///.....
>
> // x=0;
> }
>
> such if testes x at the exit of its block, if x is false then do not executes its block (works like do notking, lol)
> (seems like silly idea but its imaginable)

that could be so called quantum if ;c
calculate a lot only to finely calculate you should not execute it at all so deny it ;c (lul)

[Queequeg]

fir <profes...@gmail.com> wrote:

> (youre good example, always imbecile and always mentally reduced ... some people know that ;c)

At least I quote properly, I don't make many misspellings (which isn't
because of language knowledge, as in Polish you produce exactly the same
amount of misspellings and grammar errors as here), and I don't generate
long threads with me talking to myself and replying to my own posts about
my brilliant ideas. I probably make some grammar errors from time to time,
as English isn't my native language, but at least I read what I write.

It pains me that, as you have a lead-in in Polish ("... napisał:" instead
of "... wrote:"), some people know that you're Polish and might be
mistaken to think that every Polish programmer is a brainless, clueless,
mentally and emotionally retarded moron, which would obviously be hurtful
to the rest of us.

Rick is a religious fanatic, but he's smart enough to write properly and
express himself clearly, while you can't (or are unwilling to) adhere to
the basic principles of a widely and commonly adopted Netiquette.

--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 10:34:59 AM UTC-5, Queequeg wrote:
> Rick is a religious fanatic...

One man's "religious fanatic" is another man's (Jesus') Kingdom
servant.

If you see me doing things inappropriate to the teachings of
Christ, living inappropriately in my personal life, teaching a
doctrine contrary to the accurate teachings of the Bible, then
you have cause to consider me to be something other than what
Christ calls us all to be. But if you see me teaching what the
Bible teaches, and living the same, then what you see is not a
"fanatic," but rather someone who has heard the message, taken
it to heart, and is seeking to live it rightly and accurately.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Queequeg]

Rick C. Hodgin <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you see me doing things inappropriate to the teachings of
> Christ, living inappropriately in my personal life, teaching a
> doctrine contrary to the accurate teachings of the Bible, then
> you have cause to consider me to be something other than what
> Christ calls us all to be. But if you see me teaching what the
> Bible teaches, and living the same, then what you see is not a
> "fanatic," but rather someone who has heard the message, taken
> it to heart, and is seeking to live it rightly and accurately.

You're mixing two separate things here.

One is how you live your life -- and that's noone's business, you're
obviously free to believe in any religion you choose and live by the
Bible, as long as it's done with respect to the local law (I'd refrain
from practicing stoning, for example).

Another thing is that all other people are free to choose their own paths.
If they come to you and ask you for your teachings, then that's fine, but
imposing one's beliefs on another human being, especially one who didn't
came here for religious teachings, is what I consider a religious
fanatism.

There are many religions in the world, including atheism (which I consider
a belief too) and there's no reason, other than feeling of superiority, to
deny people their rights to choose their own belief system.

--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

[fir]

youre dork and lier not better than hodgin ifot..both takling on politenes and netiquestte and one being offensile imbecile, lier and mass spamer other being agresive imbecile, stalker and even kinda pathology...

as to me hovever what you say as my fails used to be a part of a fame people used to build around me - and so to say that fame was one of the more oryginal people creations ive seen and i foud it as quite interesting thing

i only worry i lost some of freshnes and power whan im goin old (feeling like my brain being ate by toxoplasmosis or what) and dont do even entry point work in a domain of literature (this work in c was somewhat done, some dose of it)
im heavily doomed

[David Brown]

On 04/01/2019 16:34, Queequeg wrote:
> fir <profes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> (youre good example, always imbecile and always mentally reduced ... some people know that ;c)
>
> At least I quote properly, I don't make many misspellings (which isn't
> because of language knowledge, as in Polish you produce exactly the same
> amount of misspellings and grammar errors as here), and I don't generate
> long threads with me talking to myself and replying to my own posts about
> my brilliant ideas. I probably make some grammar errors from time to time,
> as English isn't my native language, but at least I read what I write.
>
> It pains me that, as you have a lead-in in Polish ("... napisał:" instead
> of "... wrote:"), some people know that you're Polish and might be
> mistaken to think that every Polish programmer is a brainless, clueless,
> mentally and emotionally retarded moron, which would obviously be hurtful
> to the rest of us.

Don't worry. Regulars here are familiar with fir - most either killfile
him, or pretty much ignore him. We will not judge Polish programmers
based on his example - no more than we should judge Christians based on
Rick's rather bizarre theology, or other such generalisations from
single outlying cases.

[fir]

W dniu piątek, 4 stycznia 2019 17:25:01 UTC+1 użytkownik David Brown napisał:
> On 04/01/2019 16:34, Queequeg wrote:
> > fir <profes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> (youre good example, always imbecile and always mentally reduced ... some people know that ;c)
> >
> > At least I quote properly, I don't make many misspellings (which isn't
> > because of language knowledge, as in Polish you produce exactly the same
> > amount of misspellings and grammar errors as here), and I don't generate
> > long threads with me talking to myself and replying to my own posts about
> > my brilliant ideas. I probably make some grammar errors from time to time,
> > as English isn't my native language, but at least I read what I write.
> >
> > It pains me that, as you have a lead-in in Polish ("... napisał:" instead
> > of "... wrote:"), some people know that you're Polish and might be
> > mistaken to think that every Polish programmer is a brainless, clueless,
> > mentally and emotionally retarded moron, which would obviously be hurtful
> > to the rest of us.
>
> Don't worry. Regulars here are familiar with fir - most either killfile
> him, or pretty much ignore him. We will not judge Polish programmers
> based on his example - no more than we should judge Christians based on
> Rick's rather bizarre theology, or other such generalisations from
> single outlying cases.
>

sad for Polish Programmers,
in that case.... though some was able to represent something, dose of energy (to remember some i knowed like punki and arturro)..

polsh coders was good in the late 80-ties
poland was big country on Eu doemoscene as far as i kno, now i dont know how it look like (nothing special probabl;y)

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 1/4/2019 11:07 AM, Queequeg wrote:
> Rick C. Hodgin <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If you see me doing things inappropriate to the teachings of
>> Christ, living inappropriately in my personal life, teaching a
>> doctrine contrary to the accurate teachings of the Bible, then
>> you have cause to consider me to be something other than what
>> Christ calls us all to be. But if you see me teaching what the
>> Bible teaches, and living the same, then what you see is not a
>> "fanatic," but rather someone who has heard the message, taken
>> it to heart, and is seeking to live it rightly and accurately.
>
> You're mixing two separate things here.
>
> One is how you live your life -- and that's noone's business, you're
> obviously free to believe in any religion you choose and live by the
> Bible, as long as it's done with respect to the local law (I'd refrain
> from practicing stoning, for example).

You're concluding I'm mixing up two things because you're following
worldly advice, not Biblical advice:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A16&version=KJV

16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your
good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

> Another thing is that all other people are free to choose their own paths.
> If they come to you and ask you for your teachings, then that's fine, but
> imposing one's beliefs on another human being, especially one who didn't
> came here for religious teachings, is what I consider a religious
> fanatism.

Again, you're concluding I'm the one making a mistake because you're
following worldly advice, not Biblical advice:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+28%3A18-20&version=KJV

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given
unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the
world. Amen.

> There are many religions in the world, including atheism (which I consider
> a belief too) and there's no reason, other than feeling of superiority, to
> deny people their rights to choose their own belief system.

You are in error because you do not know the scripture, do not know
God, and are conflating things that have no business being ascribed
together into the same category.

It will be to your eternal destruction ... unless you repent.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 1/4/2019 11:07 AM, Queequeg wrote:> There are many religions in the world, including atheism (which I consider

> a belief too) and there's no reason, other than feeling of superiority, to
> deny people their rights to choose their own belief system.

The Bible teaches, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of
God."

It is not people like me who convince people of Christ. None of us can
do it. However, God calls us to go forth and teach all nations because
He uses us in that increase.

Without hearing the word, how would you know what the truth is? When
it is heard, then He can affirm within your core that what you're hear-
ing is the truth, and He can use that to draw you in so that you can
come to Jesus, ask forgiveness, and be saved.

What I teach you is that while there are many "religions" in the world,
Christianity is not a religion. It's different. People try to make it
into a religion, but that completely removes the power of it, for the
true power of Christianity comes from Christ, not from us, nor even our
adherence to any Biblical rules and regulations. Those are all works-
based efforts.

What Jesus does is TAKE YOUR SIN AWAY, freeing you from judgment by God.
This restores you to a pre-sin state, bring your soul out of condemnation,
and your spirit comes alive, and you are then a changed being. The way
of life you knew before is supplanted by the new life that overshadows
all things in your existence.

You think of things differently. You look at things differently. You
consider and regard things differently. You are changed from within,
and not by any work of yourself, but by the REGENERATION of your dead
spirit life into new life being alive.

You lump things into a single category, Queequeg, because you are not
aware of the draw of God. You only look at things through what your
flesh-based mind can teach you, and that flesh-based mind is deceived
in sin, corrupt in sin, can only know physical things, and what the
Christians you'll encounter in your life will teach you is that there
is MORE TO OUR EXISTENCE than this mere physical world. There is the
spirit world, and our spirit nature.

It is from within that new life, that new spirit, that new spirit
nature that comes alive when our sin is taken away by Jesus, that is
then able to guide us into understanding things we could not under-
stand otherwise.

Christianity, forgiveness of sin by Jesus, the new life, the new re-
generation of the spirit into a changed physical life's focus here
on Earth ... these are not works of the flesh, but are acts of God
bestowed upon us by His free gift of salvation, forgiveness of sin,
and the new spirit nature which asserts itself over our prior life.

If you desire to seek the truth, you must seek it fully. Read the
Bible and study these things for yourself. Do not take my word for
any of it. Seek to learn the truth, because that truth WILL make
you free.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Queequeg]

Rick C. Hodgin <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You're concluding I'm mixing up two things because you're following
> worldly advice, not Biblical advice:

It's because I don't consider Bible to be special. I see it as a book
written by people for other people. Having the luck of living in a free
country I'm free to choose on my own what to believe in and what should
guide me in life.

> Again, you're concluding I'm the one making a mistake because you're
> following worldly advice, not Biblical advice:

Again, I don't feel the need to follow Biblical advices. I reject them
with all possible consequences, in the same way I reject Qur'an, The Book
or Mormon, The Watchtower and other books considered to be holy, sacred or
special by different religions and sects.

> You are in error because you do not know the scripture, do not know
> God, and are conflating things that have no business being ascribed
> together into the same category.
>
> It will be to your eternal destruction ... unless you repent.

I appreciate that you care for my eternal destruction, but it's my freedom
to take care of that myself.

You're only human, Rick, not a prophet, a messenger or a chosen one.

By the way, I recently read a book called "Stolen Innocence", written by
Elissa Wall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Innocence

The book is about growing up in a FLDS sect.

Your words about worldly influence, knowing God, eternal destruction and
the need to repent sound exactly like those of Warren Jeffs, a
self-proclaimed prophet of the FLDS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs

This is exactly what I call religious fanatism.

--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

[Queequeg]

David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

> Don't worry. Regulars here are familiar with fir - most either killfile
> him, or pretty much ignore him. We will not judge Polish programmers
> based on his example - no more than we should judge Christians based on
> Rick's rather bizarre theology, or other such generalisations from
> single outlying cases.

Thanks, David. I appreciate that.

--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 1:03:30 PM UTC-5, Queequeg wrote:
> It's because I don't consider Bible to be special.

Read it again. This time seek the truth in your reading, and don't
have the attitude of already concluding it's just a book written by
men, but rather take heed of the teaching that it's a book written
through men by the prompting of the Holy Spirit, a force that acts
on men to write the things of God as by that spiritual input He
gives.

God can move men to move per His guidance. And evil spirits can
move men to move per their spirit guidance as well. It's why so
many people are addicts, or caught up in sin they don't want to
be a part of but can't seem to stop. They're fighting an invis-
ible enemy, one the Bible can teach you about, as it also teaches
you how to overcome it (through Christ).

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Queequeg]

Rick C. Hodgin <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Read it again.

I have other books waiting to be read -- ones that actually will be
interesting and pleasant for me to read.

> This time seek the truth in your reading, and don't have the attitude of
> already concluding it's just a book written by men, but rather take heed
> of the teaching that it's a book written through men by the prompting of
> the Holy Spirit, a force that acts on men to write the things of God as
> by that spiritual input He gives.

I see no reason to believe in this force.

You do, it gives you strength and that's okay. But trying to force others
to convert to your beliefs is not.

This is for you, Rick:
https://me.me/i/faithless-vagabond-l-cant-do-that-because-of-my-religion-17940452

--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 3:51:09 PM UTC-5, Queequeg wrote:
> Rick C. Hodgin <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This time seek the truth in your reading, and don't have the attitude of
> > already concluding it's just a book written by men, but rather take heed
> > of the teaching that it's a book written through men by the prompting of
> > the Holy Spirit, a force that acts on men to write the things of God as
> > by that spiritual input He gives.
>
> I see no reason to believe in this force.
>
> You do, it gives you strength and that's okay. But trying to force others
> to convert to your beliefs is not.

I do not try to force others. What I teach you is the truth.
It is before you for you to explore and come to understand...
if you will do so.

I have no reason to lie to you, Queequeg. I am not asking you
for money, or trying to get you to join the church I belong to,
or do any other thing than simply this: I want your sin to be
forgiven. I want you to have eternal life. I want you to go
on after you leave this world, alive, prospering, in God's own
Kingdom.

I have no other aspirations, short of being able to call you
"friend" in a fuller way.

--
Rick C. Hodgin