About C++ style (functions)

[JiiPee]

I have been struggling to deside which style to use for functions. I
originally used :

void ThisIsFoo();

but then noticing that many used lower letter I recently used some years:

void thisIsFoo();

but this year (as I saw somebody making a game library with the old
style) was thinking again that

void ThisIsFoo();

looks better. So I would like to ask that how many in this forum uses
which style and what is the reason? Is there any strong good reason to
use the other and not the other? For my eyes at the moment ThisIsFoo
looks prettier becouse its "even".

[Jerry Stuckle]

It's all a matter of style. In my code, I capitalize the first letter
of classes and structs. Functions and variables start with a lower case
letter.

Another method is to use underscores, i.e. this_is_foo(), but I'm seeing
that less and less every year (it used t be a lot more common in the
70's and 80's in C).

But, as I said, it's all a matter of style. When working with a group,
I adapt to whatever style they use. When working alone for a client, I
look at what style they've used in the past. I think it's better to be
consistent than anything else.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[Wouter van Ooijen]

Op 04-Jun-16 om 1:25 PM schreef JiiPee:

> So I would like to ask that how many in this forum uses
> which style and what is the reason? Is there any strong good reason to
> use the other and not the other? For my eyes at the moment ThisIsFoo
> looks prettier becouse its "even".

I prefer this_is_foo.

Note that there are many differen styles to choose from. Some prefer one
style (like I do), others put some semantic informatic in the style
(const, type/variable, type (Hungarian), parameter/attribute, ...)

IFYOUTHINKYOUAREIMPORTANTYOUCANSHOUTITOUT
BUT_IF_YOU_CARE_FOR_YOUR_READER_YOU_INSTER_UNDERSCORES
hey_guys_my_characterset_includes_lowercase
But_shouldnt_a_sentence_start_with_an_uppercase
HeyIamTooLazyToInsertUnderscoresWhyNotUseCapitalsInstead
butThenWhyCapitalizeTheFirstWord_thereIsNothingBeforeIt

Wouter "Objects? No Thanks!" van Ooijen

[JiiPee]

I was more like interested in which of the two: thisFoo or ThisFoo
people use is they use one, becaouse I want to use one of them but i
keep changing the style

[JiiPee]

On 04/06/2016 14:53, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 6/4/2016 7:25 AM, JiiPee wrote:
>> I have been struggling to deside which style to use for functions. I
>> originally used :
>>
>> void ThisIsFoo();
>>
>> but then noticing that many used lower letter I recently used some years:
>>
>> void thisIsFoo();
>>
>> but this year (as I saw somebody making a game library with the old
>> style) was thinking again that
>>
>> void ThisIsFoo();
>>
>> looks better. So I would like to ask that how many in this forum uses
>> which style and what is the reason? Is there any strong good reason to
>> use the other and not the other? For my eyes at the moment ThisIsFoo
>> looks prettier becouse its "even".
> It's all a matter of style.

you mean a matter of personal taste?

[Wouter van Ooijen]

Op 04-Jun-16 om 6:56 PM schreef JiiPee:

> I was more like interested in which of the two: thisFoo or ThisFoo
> people use is they use one, becaouse I want to use one of them but i
> keep changing the style

I use neither. But changing is definitely worse than choosing one :)

Wouter

[Öö Tiib]

On Saturday, 4 June 2016 14:25:31 UTC+3, JiiPee wrote:
> I have been struggling to deside which style to use for functions. I
> originally used :
>
> void ThisIsFoo();
>
> but then noticing that many used lower letter I recently used some years:
>
> void thisIsFoo();
>
> but this year (as I saw somebody making a game library with the old
> style) was thinking again that
>
> void ThisIsFoo();
>
> looks better. So I would like to ask that how many in this forum uses
> which style and what is the reason?

Source code is description of design of program and so the aesthetics
of it ("looks good") is less important than how easy is to understand
it.

If the code editor can not color names of macros, variables, data
members, functions and types differently then the code may be hard to
read if there are no other ways to differentiate between those entities.
Therefore the programmers often use different naming schemes for
different entities, it can make code easier to understand.

> Is there any strong good reason to
> use the other and not the other? For my eyes at the moment ThisIsFoo
> looks prettier becouse its "even".

If the reader of your code happens to be software engineer (and that is
so with close to 100% likelihood) then he values his time more than how
pretty it looks. When you named classes like "ThisIsFoo" then naming also
functions like "ThisIsFoo" causes ambiguity because call of such function
"ThisIsFoo()" is impossible to differentiate visually from constructing
a temporary of type "ThisIsFoo". So poor reader of your code has to look
it up what is going on and so you wasted reader's time.

[JiiPee]

you have a point, i ll think about it. I never though about this

[G B]

On 04/06/2016 17:56, JiiPee wrote:
> I was more like interested in which of the two: thisFoo or ThisFoo
> people use is they use one, becaouse I want to use one of them but i
> keep changing the style
>
>
>

If you coming from Delphi then ThisFoo() is better but C# users use
thisFoo(). Personally I prefer the ThisFoo() because I come from Delphi.

Are you using Visual Studio or something else?

[JiiPee]

normally VS. But I mean doing just standard C++, not necessary windows
programming

[Ian Collins]

ThisFoo() is more common in Windows land, thisFoo() or this_foo() elsewhere.

You can't really consider the style for functions in isolation. For
example if your style uses initial capital for class names then
thisFoo() or this_foo() makes sense for functions because it
disambiguates ThisFoo() to the reader.

--
Ian

[Chris M. Thomasson]

> "JiiPee" wrote in message news:rUy4z.304212$mA1.1...@fx34.am4...

> I have been struggling to deside which style to use for functions. I
> originally used :

> void ThisIsFoo();

> but then noticing that many used lower letter I recently used some years:

> void thisIsFoo();

FWIW, I use the (this_is_foo) style because I am so used to POSIX Threads.

Underscores are abundant in the API...

;^o

[Osmium]

I don't use either form but I prefer ThisIsFoo. I suspect the reason is
that we expect the first word of a sentence to be capitalized and seeing
thisIsFoo upsets the delicate balance in our brains.

[JiiPee]

On 04/06/2016 20:28, Osmium wrote:

> "JiiPee" <n...@notvalid.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> looks better. So I would like to ask that how many in this forum uses
>> which style and what is the reason? Is there any strong good reason
>> to use the other and not the other? For my eyes at the moment
>> ThisIsFoo looks prettier becouse its "even".
>
> I don't use either form but I prefer ThisIsFoo. I suspect the reason
> is that we expect the first word of a sentence to be capitalized and
> seeing thisIsFoo upsets the delicate balance in our brains.

thats how also was thinking, although maybe its not too big issue...
But its true that it a bit conflicts with the creation of an object:
ThisIsFoo();

[Ian Collins]

Which leads to the ultimate abomination: class CFoo !

--
Ian

[JiiPee]

are you condemning Microsofts nice MFC??? how dare you!! :)

but seriouesly, it is respected library, right

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 6/4/2016 12:57 PM, JiiPee wrote:
> On 04/06/2016 14:53, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 6/4/2016 7:25 AM, JiiPee wrote:
>>> I have been struggling to deside which style to use for functions. I
>>> originally used :
>>>
>>> void ThisIsFoo();
>>>
>>> but then noticing that many used lower letter I recently used some
>>> years:
>>>
>>> void thisIsFoo();
>>>
>>> but this year (as I saw somebody making a game library with the old
>>> style) was thinking again that
>>>
>>> void ThisIsFoo();
>>>
>>> looks better. So I would like to ask that how many in this forum uses
>>> which style and what is the reason? Is there any strong good reason to
>>> use the other and not the other? For my eyes at the moment ThisIsFoo
>>> looks prettier becouse its "even".
>> It's all a matter of style.
>
> you mean a matter of personal taste?
>

No, I mean a matter of style. Nothing more, nothing less.

<snip>

[Öö Tiib]

Aren't those "C" prefixes the nuisance from "C-with-objects" times before
standard and namespaces? Is the "C" of MFC different from "Q" of Qt or
"wx" of wxWidgets? It may be because they also use prefixes "I", "CCom",
"CAtl" and suffix "Impl" in some class names. Usage of neither namespaces
nor prefixes feels worst and non-professional to me but YMMV.

[Bo Persson]

But this can be less of a problem if you follow the pattern of function
names containing a verb (what it does) and class names being a noun
(what it is).

The name Foo() is just an example of how not to name things.


Bo Persson

[David Brown]

Wrong. Comparing a library to MFC is usually considered an insult.

Somewhere along the line, MS got the idea of "Hungarian notation"
totally mixed up - it went from a good idea that was useful for safer
programming (such as prefix "ss" for safe strings and "us" for unsafe
strings), especially in weak typed languages, into a way to uglify code,
prevent proper typing, and hinder maintenance and improvements to code
(such as prefix "C" for classes, "pwsz" for pointer to wide strings, etc.).


(I don't know details of the history of MFC, but presumably many of the
design decisions were due to limitations of the C++ language and the
MSVC compiler at the time, plus the chaos of the underlying Win32 API.
I am not saying that MS did a bad job here, merely that it is not a
library or style to be copied now.)

[David Brown]

The key difference is that the "wx" of wxWidgets and the "Q" of QT are
namespace indicators from the days before the language had namespaces.
The MFC "C" prefixes are for "class" - which is entirely redundant if
you know what you are doing when you are using the classes.

[JiiPee]

On 05/06/2016 13:36, David Brown wrote:
> On 05/06/16 03:09, JiiPee wrote:
>> On 05/06/2016 01:37, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> O
>>>

> Wrong. Comparing a library to MFC is usually considered an insult.
>
> Somewhere along the line, MS got the idea of "Hungarian notation"
> totally mixed up - it went from a good idea that was useful for safer
> programming (such as prefix "ss" for safe strings and "us" for unsafe
> strings), especially in weak typed languages, into a way to uglify code,
> prevent proper typing, and hinder maintenance and improvements to code
> (such as prefix "C" for classes, "pwsz" for pointer to wide strings, etc.).
>
>
> (I don't know details of the history of MFC, but presumably many of the
> design decisions were due to limitations of the C++ language and the
> MSVC compiler at the time, plus the chaos of the underlying Win32 API.
> I am not saying that MS did a bad job here, merely that it is not a
> library or style to be copied now.)

on the other hand MFC works... it just works! so what is wrong if it
works? I still use it and the only GUI i really know.

>

[Wouter van Ooijen]

Op 05-Jun-16 om 2:42 PM schreef JiiPee:

That it works is not a valid argument for its *style*. It would still
work if you replaced each identifier in it by xN (for N in 1,2,3,,...).

Wouter

[JiiPee]

I agree, thats why I stopped using it some years ago.

>

[Alf P. Steinbach]

On 05.06.2016 14:36, David Brown wrote:
>
> Somewhere along the line, MS got the idea of "Hungarian notation"
> totally mixed up - it went from a good idea that was useful for safer
> programming (such as prefix "ss" for safe strings and "us" for unsafe
> strings), especially in weak typed languages, into a way to uglify code,
> prevent proper typing, and hinder maintenance and improvements to code
> (such as prefix "C" for classes, "pwsz" for pointer to wide strings, etc.).
>
>
> (I don't know details of the history of MFC, but presumably many of the
> design decisions were due to limitations of the C++ language and the
> MSVC compiler at the time, plus the chaos of the underlying Win32 API.
> I am not saying that MS did a bad job here, merely that it is not a
> library or style to be copied now.)
>

As far as I know the Hungarian notation was originally in support of the
help system in Microsoft's Programmers' Workbench IDE.

I don't know where to find this info now, in particular as there were at
least two other Programmers' Workbench.

I think I saw it in Petzold's Programming Windows 3rd edition or
thereabouts, where he discussed logical fonts or something.


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf

[David Brown]

I have not done much C or C++ programming on Windows, so I don't know
what was implemented or common at different times in MS's tools. But my
understanding was that the key point of Hungarian notation was
originally to add extra information for the programmer, beyond what
could be conveniently or reliably expressed in the language (C in
particular). A key example is was that information a program got from
the outside should be labelled differently:

usName = nameEnteredOnWebPage();
ssName = sanatizeString(usName);
runSqlQueryByName(ssName);

If you are strict about using "us" for "unsafe string" and "ss" for
"safe string", then your chances of coding for an SQL injection attack
here are very much smaller.

This use of prefixes added something useful to the code. (With modern
C++ programming, it could arguably be better done with different types
rather than naming prefixes). But at some point, people started using
prefixes merely to indicate types - duplicating information rather than
adding it. And as more types got used, the prefixes got uglier, and
maintenance got harder because any changes meant changing two different
ways of saying the same thing.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Hungarian Notation was around long before MS's IDE (and not restricted
to C). At least back in the 70's. Petzold did use it, but he wasn't
first by any means.

[Paavo Helde]

On 5.06.2016 15:36, David Brown wrote:
> Wrong. Comparing a library to MFC is usually considered an insult.
>
> Somewhere along the line, MS got the idea of "Hungarian notation"
> totally mixed up - it went from a good idea that was useful for safer
> programming (such as prefix "ss" for safe strings and "us" for unsafe
> strings), especially in weak typed languages, into a way to uglify code,
> prevent proper typing, and hinder maintenance and improvements to code
> (such as prefix "C" for classes, "pwsz" for pointer to wide strings, etc.).
>
>
> (I don't know details of the history of MFC, but presumably many of the
> design decisions were due to limitations of the C++ language and the
> MSVC compiler at the time, plus the chaos of the underlying Win32 API.
> I am not saying that MS did a bad job here, merely that it is not a
> library or style to be copied now.)

I have always assumed the MS Hungarian notation conventions were worked
out for C where they actually make sense, but then were automatically
copied over to C++ where they do not make sense at all. It seems like
somebody did not realize these are two very different languages.

Cheers
Paavo

[Mr Flibble]

On 04/06/2016 12:25, JiiPee wrote:
> I have been struggling to deside which style to use for functions. I
> originally used :
>
> void ThisIsFoo();
>
> but then noticing that many used lower letter I recently used some years:
>
> void thisIsFoo();
>
> but this year (as I saw somebody making a game library with the old
> style) was thinking again that
>
> void ThisIsFoo();
>

> looks better. So I would like to ask that how many in this forum uses
> which style and what is the reason? Is there any strong good reason to
> use the other and not the other? For my eyes at the moment ThisIsFoo
> looks prettier becouse its "even".

The superior naming convention that I use:

1. Naming Conventions

Artefact Convention
Function name foo_bar_baz
Class name foo_bar_baz

Object/variable name:

fooBarBaz
prefixFooBarBaz
Prefix Meaning
none Local object/variable
a Function argument
i Class member ("instance") object/variable
s Static object/variable
k Constant

Enumeration name foo_bar_baz_e
Enumerator name FooBarBaz
Template parameter FooBarBaz
Macro FOO_BAR_BAZ

Examples

#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <vector>

enum grade_e
{
A, B, C, D, E, F
};

class student
{
private:
typedef std::vector<grade_e> grades;
public:
student(const std::string& aName) : iName(aName) {}
public:
const std::string& name() const { return iName; }
void add_grade(grade_e aGrade)
{
iGrades.push_back(aGrade);
}
grade_e average_grade() const
{
if (iGrades.empty())
return F;
int total = 0;
for (grades::const_iterator i = iGrades.begin(); i != iGrades.end(); ++i)
total += *i;
return static_cast<grade_e>(total / iGrades.size());
}
private:
const std::string iName;
grades iGrades;
};

int main()
{
student s("Mr Flibble");
s.add_grade(A);
s.add_grade(B);
s.add_grade(C);
s.add_grade(D);
s.add_grade(E);
std::cout << s.name() << "'s average grade is " <<
static_cast<char>(s.average_grade() + 'A') << std::endl;
}

/Flibble

[red floyd]

How do sausages fit into this convention?

[Mr Flibble]

uint32_t sausage_count() const;

void add_sausage(const sausage& aSausageToAdd);

class sausage : public i_eatable
{
public:
void eat(i_eater& aAnimal) { ... }
public:
double iEnergy;
};

/Flibble

[Vir Campestris]

On 04/06/2016 17:57, JiiPee wrote:
> you mean a matter of personal taste?

No. It requires agreement from your whole team.

Or else from Linus, if you are doing kernel work. And he seems to think
we still use 80x25 green screens.

Andy

[Alf P. Steinbach]

On 05.06.2016 16:56, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 6/5/2016 9:07 AM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>> On 05.06.2016 14:36, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> Somewhere along the line, MS got the idea of "Hungarian notation"
>>> totally mixed up - it went from a good idea that was useful for safer
>>> programming (such as prefix "ss" for safe strings and "us" for unsafe
>>> strings), especially in weak typed languages, into a way to uglify code,
>>> prevent proper typing, and hinder maintenance and improvements to code
>>> (such as prefix "C" for classes, "pwsz" for pointer to wide strings,
>>> etc.).
>>>
>>>
>>> (I don't know details of the history of MFC, but presumably many of the
>>> design decisions were due to limitations of the C++ language and the
>>> MSVC compiler at the time, plus the chaos of the underlying Win32 API.
>>> I am not saying that MS did a bad job here, merely that it is not a
>>> library or style to be copied now.)
>>>
>>
>> As far as I know the Hungarian notation was originally in support of the
>> help system in Microsoft's Programmers' Workbench IDE.
>>
>> I don't know where to find this info now, in particular as there were at
>> least two other Programmers' Workbench.
>>
>> I think I saw it in Petzold's Programming Windows 3rd edition or
>> thereabouts, where he discussed logical fonts or something.
>

> Hungarian Notation was around long before MS's IDE (and not restricted
> to C). At least back in the 70's. Petzold did use it, but he wasn't
> first by any means.

Uhm, this view isn't factually incorrect, but it's irrelevant.

We were talking about Microsoft's Hungarian notation, which was the
first (and hopefully only ever) widespread use of it.

The /name/, “Hungarian”, refers to origins of the Microsoft chief
architect who invented it, and yes, he did that long before joining
Microsoft, namely Charles Simonyi, who was born Hungarian. In an
¹interview in 1986 he explained the notation name this way:

<quote>
It's called "Hungarian" as a joke. You know they say, "That's Greek to
me," meaning they don't understand it, so it might as well be written in
Greek. "Hungarian" is a twist on that phrase because these naming
conventions are actually supposed to make the code more readable. The
joke is that the program looks so unreadable, it might as well be
written in Hungarian. But it's a set of conventions that controls the
naming of all quantities in the program.
</quote>

Wikipedia's ²article about the notation does mention that “the original
Hungarian notation … was invented by Charles Simonyi”, but somehow the
authors of that article failed to catch on to the fact that he is
Hungarian, or that Hungarian sounds like Greek to most people, and
invented a silly explanation about the order of first name and surname
in Hungarian – such is the standard of this Wikipedia article.

Anyway, apparently Simonyi wrote an influential ³internal Microsoft
memorandum about the notation, which caused it to be adopted as a
standard in Microsoft's application division in the early DOS days.
Note: the first IBM PC and DOS appeared in 1981, so that sets the time
frame for the first serious adoption, and in particular the adoption in
Microsoft, which we discussed. Then Petzold included a description of it
at the start of his “Programming Windows” book, which introduced it to
the masses via the Windows programmers. I think it's not so important
that Petzold also used it, but you're right that he did.

Cheers & hth.,

- Alf

PS: Please don't quote signatures or other irrelevant stuff, thanks! :)

Links:
¹
http://web.archive.org/web/20020606140621/http://shamit.virtualave.net/charles_simonyi.htm
² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_notation#History
³ https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa260976%28VS.60%29.aspx

[Jerry Stuckle]

The comment was about Hungarian notation in general. And it was used in
some languages even back in the 70's. Some COBOL programmers have used
it; I first ran into it seriously when doing some PL/1 work around 1980.
But it was not new to the people I was working with at the time.

> The /name/, “Hungarian”, refers to origins of the Microsoft chief
> architect who invented it, and yes, he did that long before joining
> Microsoft, namely Charles Simonyi, who was born Hungarian. In an
> ¹interview in 1986 he explained the notation name this way:
>
> <quote>
> It's called "Hungarian" as a joke. You know they say, "That's Greek to
> me," meaning they don't understand it, so it might as well be written in
> Greek. "Hungarian" is a twist on that phrase because these naming
> conventions are actually supposed to make the code more readable. The
> joke is that the program looks so unreadable, it might as well be
> written in Hungarian. But it's a set of conventions that controls the
> naming of all quantities in the program.
> </quote>
>
> Wikipedia's ²article about the notation does mention that “the original
> Hungarian notation … was invented by Charles Simonyi”, but somehow the
> authors of that article failed to catch on to the fact that he is
> Hungarian, or that Hungarian sounds like Greek to most people, and
> invented a silly explanation about the order of first name and surname
> in Hungarian – such is the standard of this Wikipedia article.
>

There is the truth, and there is Wikipedia. *Sometimes* the two coincide.

> Anyway, apparently Simonyi wrote an influential ³internal Microsoft
> memorandum about the notation, which caused it to be adopted as a
> standard in Microsoft's application division in the early DOS days.
> Note: the first IBM PC and DOS appeared in 1981, so that sets the time
> frame for the first serious adoption, and in particular the adoption in
> Microsoft, which we discussed. Then Petzold included a description of it
> at the start of his “Programming Windows” book, which introduced it to
> the masses via the Windows programmers. I think it's not so important
> that Petzold also used it, but you're right that he did.
>

Later, yes. But not when he first used it.

And Windows programmers are not the only programmers in the world - and
weren't at that time, either.

>
> Cheers & hth.,
>
> - Alf
>
> PS: Please don't quote signatures or other irrelevant stuff, thanks! :)
>

Then correct your sig separator. It should be *exactly*
hyphen-hyphen-space-newline.

> Links:
> ¹
> http://web.archive.org/web/20020606140621/http://shamit.virtualave.net/charles_simonyi.htm
>
> ² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_notation#History
> ³ https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa260976%28VS.60%29.aspx
>

[Alf P. Steinbach]

On 06.06.2016 04:31, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>> Cheers & hth.,
>>
>> - Alf
>>
>> PS: Please don't quote signatures or other irrelevant stuff, thanks! :)
>>
>
> Then correct your sig separator. It should be *exactly*
> hyphen-hyphen-space-newline.

I don't have a sig separator now. At one time I did, and my signature
ended up in a database FAQ (of all things) and some Usenet how-to's. One
reason I'm not using a signature now is that Google Groups, probably
intentionally, messes it up, so that not everybody can follow that
convention.

Regardless, you're now behaving in a way that has similarities with
asshole behavior.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Yes, by not following the RFC's and then complaining about others, you
are behaving as an asshole.

See https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3676.txt section 4.3.

And if Google Groups messes it up, that's your problem. Get a real news
reader.

[Alf P. Steinbach]

On 06.06.2016 14:42, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 6/6/2016 4:59 AM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>> On 06.06.2016 04:31, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Cheers & hth.,
>>>>
>>>> - Alf
>>>>
>>>> PS: Please don't quote signatures or other irrelevant stuff, thanks! :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then correct your sig separator. It should be *exactly*
>>> hyphen-hyphen-space-newline.
>>
>> I don't have a sig separator now. At one time I did, and my signature
>> ended up in a database FAQ (of all things) and some Usenet how-to's. One
>> reason I'm not using a signature now is that Google Groups, probably
>> intentionally, messes it up, so that not everybody can follow that
>> convention.
>>
>> Regardless, you're now behaving in a way that has similarities with
>> asshole behavior.
>>
>>
>> Cheers & hth.,
>>
>> - Alf
>>
>
> Yes, by not following the RFC's and then complaining about others, you
> are behaving as an asshole.
>
> See https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3676.txt section 4.3.
>
> And if Google Groups messes it up, that's your problem. Get a real news
> reader.

In addition to persisting to behave in an asshole-like way, you here
submit evidence that you don't read very carefully what others write.

To find out which server I'm posting from, and which news client I'm
using, you can simply check the headers.

I think you will have a much more pleasant & fruitful Usenet experience
if you stop treating most everyone as adversaries or enemies. My 3c. ;-)

[Jerry Stuckle]

You're the one who claimed Google Groups messes up your sig, not me.

And since you're using a real news reader on ES, you have no excuse for
violating the RFC's (not that you would, anyway), except that you are an
asshole.

And I'm not the one who complained because your sig is incorrect. Plus
I'm not the one who started with the asshole comments.

Take your own medicine.

[Mr Flibble]

On 06/06/2016 15:10, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> And I'm not the one who complained because your sig is incorrect. Plus
> I'm not the one who started with the asshole comments.
>

You a pathological liar aren't you mate? I can see *your* complaint
right now, on my screen, in black and white:

"On 06.06.2016 04:31, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Then correct your sig separator. It should be *exactly*
> hyphen-hyphen-space-newline."

So *why* are you a pathological liar? Is it simply a really egregious
personality trait or are you mentally ill? Perhaps you should see a doctor?

/Flibble

[Jerry Stuckle]

Yup, I told him what was wrong with his sig. And I did not call him an
asshole.

But you once again show your inability to read.

[Mr Flibble]

On 06/06/2016 18:06, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 6/6/2016 12:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 06/06/2016 15:10, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> And I'm not the one who complained because your sig is incorrect. Plus
>>> I'm not the one who started with the asshole comments.
>>>
>>
>> You a pathological liar aren't you mate? I can see *your* complaint
>> right now, on my screen, in black and white:
>>
>> "On 06.06.2016 04:31, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> Then correct your sig separator. It should be *exactly*
>>> hyphen-hyphen-space-newline."
>>
>> So *why* are you a pathological liar? Is it simply a really egregious
>> personality trait or are you mentally ill? Perhaps you should see a doctor?
>>
>> /Flibble
>
> Yup, I told him what was wrong with his sig. And I did not call him an
> asshole.
>
> But you once again show your inability to read.

What? You didn't call him an asshole? Another bare faced lie!

"On 06.06.2016 14:42, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Yes, by not following the RFC's and then complaining about others, you
> are behaving as an asshole."

I can only conclude at this point that you are either:

a) a troll (but an incredibly stupid one who doesn't get that what you
say on the Internet stays on the Internet)

or:

b) mentally ill.

I am leaning toward (b). Mate, seek professional help.

/Flibble

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 6/6/2016 1:19 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 06/06/2016 18:06, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 6/6/2016 12:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On 06/06/2016 15:10, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> And I'm not the one who complained because your sig is incorrect. Plus
>>>> I'm not the one who started with the asshole comments.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You a pathological liar aren't you mate? I can see *your* complaint
>>> right now, on my screen, in black and white:
>>>
>>> "On 06.06.2016 04:31, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> Then correct your sig separator. It should be *exactly*
>>>> hyphen-hyphen-space-newline."
>>>
>>> So *why* are you a pathological liar? Is it simply a really egregious
>>> personality trait or are you mentally ill? Perhaps you should see a
>>> doctor?
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>
>> Yup, I told him what was wrong with his sig. And I did not call him an
>> asshole.
>>
>> But you once again show your inability to read.
>
> What? You didn't call him an asshole? Another bare faced lie!
>

Yes, but look at the message I responded to. But you can't read, can you?

> "On 06.06.2016 14:42, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Yes, by not following the RFC's and then complaining about others, you
>> are behaving as an asshole."
>
> I can only conclude at this point that you are either:
>
> a) a troll (but an incredibly stupid one who doesn't get that what you
> say on the Internet stays on the Internet)
>
> or:
>
> b) mentally ill.
>
> I am leaning toward (b). Mate, seek professional help.
>
> /Flibble

We already know you are just a troll. And a very stoopid one, at that.

[Vir Campestris]

On 05/06/2016 21:30, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> or that Hungarian sounds like Greek to most people

Speaking as someone who knows neither language - odd bits of Greek make
sense, which is no surprise as it's one of the languages that ended up
feeding into modern English.

Whereas Hungarian ... is different. Not even closely related IIRC.

My 2p worth on the original debate - Hungarian notation becomes unusable
with C++ and all the new types, and redundant with modern IDEs. Though
some of my colleagues insist on using Vi...

Andy

[Juha Nieminen]

JiiPee <n...@notvalid.com> wrote:
> I have been struggling to deside which style to use for functions. I
> originally used :
>
> void ThisIsFoo();
>
> but then noticing that many used lower letter I recently used some years:
>
> void thisIsFoo();

Many people like to distinguish between functions and types, and the most
common way of doing that is to use that first letter.

After all, using that naming convention, foo() and Foo() mean rather
different things, which becomes apparent from the name even without
knowing anything about that function/class. It may be a small thing,
but it can help.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Stanimir Stamenkov]

Mon, 6 Jun 2016 08:42:02 -0400, /Jerry Stuckle/:

> On 6/6/2016 4:59 AM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>> On 06.06.2016 04:31, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>>>> Cheers & hth.,
>>>>
>>>> - Alf
>>>>
>>>> PS: Please don't quote signatures or other irrelevant stuff, thanks! :)
>>>
>>> Then correct your sig separator. It should be *exactly*
>>> hyphen-hyphen-space-newline.
>>

>> I don't have a sig separator now...

>
> Yes, by not following the RFC's and then complaining about others, you
> are behaving as an asshole.
>
> See https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3676.txt section 4.3.

This doesn't mandate everyone should use this signature separator.
It has its uses mainly for signatures which include more than simple
name, and spread two or more lines. One may sign using any of:

- Name
/Name
-- Name

or another style. I think you're just being rude, lazy, or just
ignorant by not stripping it yourself (if the reader doesn't or
can't do it automatically for you), just like you should trim quotes
to a sane minimum, and that can't be automatic.

--
Stanimir

[Jerry Stuckle]

Where does it say it is "mainly for signatures which include more than a
simple name"? Citation?

RFC's are there for a reason. News readers and email readers use them
as standards. Only idiots and trolls ignore them. Which are you?i

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 6/17/2016 6:52 PM, Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:

Oh, and which RFC(s) define any of these other styles?

[Stanimir Stamenkov]

Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:12:17 -0400, /Jerry Stuckle/:

> On 6/17/2016 6:52 PM, Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
>> Mon, 6 Jun 2016 08:42:02 -0400, /Jerry Stuckle/:
>>> On 6/6/2016 4:59 AM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>>> On 06.06.2016 04:31, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers & hth.,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Alf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS: Please don't quote signatures or other irrelevant stuff,
>>>>>> thanks! :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Then correct your sig separator. It should be *exactly*
>>>>> hyphen-hyphen-space-newline.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a sig separator now...
>>>
>>> Yes, by not following the RFC's and then complaining about others, you
>>> are behaving as an asshole.
>>>
>>> See https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3676.txt section 4.3.
>>
>> This doesn't mandate everyone should use this signature separator. It
>> has its uses mainly for signatures which include more than simple name,
>> and spread two or more lines. One may sign using any of:
>>
>> - Name
>> /Name
>> -- Name
>>
>> or another style. I think you're just being rude, lazy, or just
>> ignorant by not stripping it yourself (if the reader doesn't or can't do
>> it automatically for you), just like you should trim quotes to a sane
>> minimum, and that can't be automatic.
>

> Where does it say it is "mainly for signatures which include more than a
> simple name"? Citation?

Just use your brains.

> RFC's are there for a reason. News readers and email readers use them
> as standards. Only idiots and trolls ignore them. Which are you?i

Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:48:53 -0400, /Jerry Stuckle/:

> Oh, and which RFC(s) define any of these other styles?

Which RFC(s) prohibits using them? Which RFC(s) prohibits writing
in a style not defined in a RFC? Anyway, I'm off to something more
productive.

--
Stanimir

[Jerry Stuckle]

Not much of a citation.

>> RFC's are there for a reason. News readers and email readers use them
>> as standards. Only idiots and trolls ignore them. Which are you?i
>
> Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:48:53 -0400, /Jerry Stuckle/:
>
>> Oh, and which RFC(s) define any of these other styles?
>
> Which RFC(s) prohibits using them? Which RFC(s) prohibits writing in a
> style not defined in a RFC? Anyway, I'm off to something more productive.
>

RFC's define what IS to be used. Not what IS NOT to be used. They
define standards, and those who do not follow the standards have no
right to complain.

So now you've answered the question. You are both an idiot and a troll.

Go back to playing with your Legos. They're more your speed.

[Real Troll]

On 18/06/2016 15:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> So now you've answered the question. You are both an idiot and a troll.

Are you sure dickhead?

[Richard]

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Real Troll <real....@trolls.com> spake the secret code
<nk3ts4$a23$1...@gioia.aioe.org> thusly:

>On 18/06/2016 15:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> So now you've answered the question. You are both an idiot and a troll.
>
>Are you sure dickhead?

Oh yes, he's a sure dickhead alright. He's always sure of himself and
he's a dickhead.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>