Conversion from UTF32 to UTF8 for review
in [MFC]
|
From: Pete Delgado on 3 Jun 2010 14:11 "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message news:z4udnfRt0ve5MZrRnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > 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. No, I am not misconstruing your statements nor am I being deceitful. I was merely putting a humorous twist on your ridiculous statements. -Pete
From: Paavo Helde on 3 Jun 2010 14:36 "Leigh Johnston" <leigh(a)i42.co.uk> wrote in news:ecadnRsIEaarkpjRnZ2dnUVZ8iWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com: > > Additional: > > On VC++ the use of secure (checked) iterators (which is the default) > results in the version which uses a temporary being at least twice as > fast as the version which uses iterators when the input container is a > vector (like in the OP). A combination of checked iterators and > temporaries is both speedy and safe, another win-win for the idiom. Nope, it is not win-win, it is lose-lose. The checked iterators are a debug feature which by some reason is also switched on in Release build and which cannot be easily turned off for individual files or projects as it affects the binary compatibility. If this feature forces a specific coding style to be used, then this is just a bit more unfortunate. (Note that this does not mean that I'm against using temporaries. I'm bringing out common subexpressions to temporaries quite a lot as I am lazy and don't want waste time analyzing the code in detail to find out if the optimizer could and would do that by itself.) Cheers Paavo
From: Peter Olcott on 3 Jun 2010 15:10 On 6/3/2010 1:11 PM, Pete Delgado wrote: > "Peter Olcott"<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message > news:z4udnfRt0ve5MZrRnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> 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. > > No, I am not misconstruing your statements nor am I being deceitful. I was > merely putting a humorous twist on your ridiculous statements. > > > -Pete > > There is nothing at all that I said that would indicate that I consider the term "works correctly the first time" as synonymous with the term "bug". I said "works correctly the first time AFTER" and people continue to strip out the term "AFTER" from what I said so that they can intentionally misconstrue what I said.
From: Öö Tiib on 4 Jun 2010 06:40 On Jun 3, 9:36 pm, Paavo Helde <myfirstn...(a)osa.pri.ee> wrote: > "Leigh Johnston" <le...(a)i42.co.uk> wrote innews:ecadnRsIEaarkpjRnZ2dnUVZ8iWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com: > > > Additional: > > > On VC++ the use of secure (checked) iterators (which is the default) > > results in the version which uses a temporary being at least twice as > > fast as the version which uses iterators when the input container is a > > vector (like in the OP). A combination of checked iterators and > > temporaries is both speedy and safe, another win-win for the idiom. > > Nope, it is not win-win, it is lose-lose. The checked iterators are a > debug feature which by some reason is also switched on in Release build > and which cannot be easily turned off for individual files or projects as > it affects the binary compatibility. If this feature forces a specific > coding style to be used, then this is just a bit more unfortunate. I also dislike that feature. Makes some containers like 30 times slower. C++ feels like Ruby at places as result. I check bounds anyway, so i do not need it. One should build every dependency he can on Windows (its not Linux). It is possible to use .vsprops that turn bad things off in Release build of all modules you build. Also, it helps if to avoid propagating iterators between modules on any case.
From: Joseph M. Newcomer on 4 Jun 2010 12:27
My code is always perfect as written, except for a few bugs I have to fix. But if I define "perfection" as "almost right" I win, every time. joe On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 13:46:31 -0400, "Pete Delgado" <Peter.Delgado(a)NoSpam.com> wrote: > >"Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message >news:sfSdnTGTyIk3UJvRnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> On 6/2/2010 2:57 PM, Pete Delgado wrote: >>> "Peter Olcott"<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message >>> news:qbednWXw38bMkJjRnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>> >>>> Since no one else here thinks that my code is anything like abysmal that >>>> shows that there is something else going on besides an objective >>>> assessment of the quality of my code. >>> >>> I think that it would be a mistake on your part to assume that the >>> quality >>> of your code is not suspect just because you have not gotten an abundance >>> of >>> posts stating that fact. You have already demonstrated an extraordinary >>> lack >>> of receptiveness to constructive criticism, so why would any of us >>> continue >>> to beat our heads against the wall? >>> >>> -Pete >>> >>> >> After correcting three typos it worked correctly the first time. This is >> the most objective measure of quality. > >The above statement is demonstrably false unless one has a very loose >definition of "worked correctly". Perhaps you mean to say that it worked "as >intended" with the inclusion of infinite loops, but saying that it worked >"correctly" is simply a falsehood since the original code did not do what >you had suggested that it would do. > >In addition, you have already given us your standards of code quality, none >of which your code seems to meet, so it appears that rather than "fix" your >code, you have "fixed" your quality metrics. > >I suppose that I am being rather generous since it appears to me that this >really was not "your code" at all, but rather a derived work from someone >else. This makes it all the more humorous because you have placed a >copyright on the code! > >-Pete > Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] email: newcomer(a)flounder.com Web: http://www.flounder.com MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm |