Conversion from UTF32 to UTF8 for review
in [MFC]
|
From: Pete Delgado on 3 Jun 2010 02:16 "Liviu" <lab2k1(a)gmail.c0m> wrote in message news:ebIbHLtALHA.348(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote... >> On 6/2/2010 6:26 PM, Liviu wrote: >>> "Peter Olcott"<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote... > Go back and read again my last post there. If that is not a validation > bug, then by all means clarify how you define a "bug", or "aware of". Liviu, I believe the terms he uses for "bug" are "works correctly the first time" and "small typo"... ;-) -Pete
From: Pete Delgado on 3 Jun 2010 02:23 "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message news:jbOdnSu7s_6ouJrRnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > I have found that maximum readability tends to lead to maximum > reliability. If you were to make the case that readability leads to maintainability, I think that many of us would tend to agree with you. However, you have already demonstrated with the code that you posted on the 27th of May that even if *you*, Peter Olcott personally find the code readable, it is not necessarily correct or reliable. -Pete
From: Peter Olcott on 3 Jun 2010 09:19 On 6/3/2010 12:57 AM, Liviu wrote: > "Peter Olcott"<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote... >> On 6/2/2010 11:10 PM, Liviu wrote: >>> "Peter Olcott"<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote... >>>> On 6/2/2010 6:26 PM, Liviu wrote: >>>> >>>>> By the way, did you fix the validation bug still present in the >>>>> latest code you submitted in the other thread? >>>> >>>> There was no validation bug that I am aware of >>> >>> Go back and read again my last post there. >> >> The current code (that I just posted) is to the best of my knowledge >> entirely correct in every way. > > Don't know and don't really care about your "current code (that I > just posted)". My point, as clearly stated, was about your previous > code from 3+ days ago where the bug definitely existed. After I > brought that up, you still repeated in other posts that "it worked > correctly" (with the expected "typo" excuses, of course). > > I don't see how your new claim now, that the just modified code > "is to the best of my knowledge entirely correct in every way", > has any bearing on the particular point that you are either obtuse > or disingenuous about that previous bug, and your awareness of it. > > Liviu > > You could simply look at the current code and see if what you considered to be a bug is no longer there. If not it would seem that you are just trying to be argumentative.
From: Peter Olcott on 3 Jun 2010 09:20 On 6/3/2010 1:16 AM, Pete Delgado wrote: > "Liviu"<lab2k1(a)gmail.c0m> wrote in message > news:ebIbHLtALHA.348(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> "Peter Olcott"<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote... >>> On 6/2/2010 6:26 PM, Liviu wrote: >>>> "Peter Olcott"<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote... >> Go back and read again my last post there. If that is not a validation >> bug, then by all means clarify how you define a "bug", or "aware of". > > Liviu, > I believe the terms he uses for "bug" are "works correctly the first time" > and "small typo"... ;-) > > -Pete > > You too are intentionally misconstruing what I said just to be argumentative. This is deceitful.
From: Peter Olcott on 3 Jun 2010 09:33
On 6/3/2010 1:23 AM, Pete Delgado wrote: > "Peter Olcott"<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message > news:jbOdnSu7s_6ouJrRnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> I have found that maximum readability tends to lead to maximum >> reliability. > > > If you were to make the case that readability leads to maintainability, I > think that many of us would tend to agree with you. However, you have > already demonstrated with the code that you posted on the 27th of May that > even if *you*, Peter Olcott personally find the code readable, it is not > necessarily correct or reliable. > > -Pete > > Yet another deceitful misconstruing of what I said. I never ever claimed to be infallible. You are measuring my code against an implied claim of infallibility, thus yet again intentionally deceitful. There were a total of three typos that needed to be corrected before the code worked essentially correctly. I then augmented the code to reject Surrogates, and this code worked correctly without even a typo. |