on goto
in [ASM]
|
From: Richard Heathfield on 2 May 2010 03:13 Juha Nieminen wrote: > In comp.lang.c++ Richard Heathfield <rjh(a)see.sig.invalid> wrote: >> If the data are sorted, bsearch. >> >> If not, why not? >> >> In any case, your loop condition expressions do not correctly describe >> the conditions under which the loop will terminate. Please rewrite your >> example so that they do, and then by all means ask me again if you wish. > > No offense, but it always amuses me how some C programmers try to > wiggle themselves out of actually giving honest answers when they are > presented with problematic situations related to their coding style, C, > or both. Your paragraph, above, is a classic example. <snip> > And I have no idea what you mean by "your loop condition expressions do > not correctly describe the conditions under which the loop will terminate". That's the problem. > Of course they do. No, they don't. > Is this just another attempt at wiggling yourself out > of actually giving the answer? No, it's an attempt at wiggling *your*self out of fixing your code. > Is it *really* that hard to simply say "yes, in this particular example > the 'return' is indeed the simplest way"? Does it hurt your pride or > something? What has pride got to do with it? It's common sense, that's all. The simplest way (and one of the fastest) to get from Tower Bridge Approach to St Katharine's Way is to jump off the bridge, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the /best/ way. -- Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk> Email: -http://www. +rjh@ "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line vacant - apply within
From: Lie Ryan on 2 May 2010 03:25 On 05/02/10 17:13, Richard Heathfield wrote: > Juha Nieminen wrote: >> In comp.lang.c++ Richard Heathfield <rjh(a)see.sig.invalid> wrote: >>> If the data are sorted, bsearch. >>> >>> If not, why not? >>> >>> In any case, your loop condition expressions do not correctly >>> describe the conditions under which the loop will terminate. Please >>> rewrite your example so that they do, and then by all means ask me >>> again if you wish. >> >> No offense, but it always amuses me how some C programmers try to >> wiggle themselves out of actually giving honest answers when they are >> presented with problematic situations related to their coding style, C, >> or both. > > Your paragraph, above, is a classic example. I think Juha's point is that, if you write the for-loop's conditionals so they (using your terms) "describe the condition which the loop will terminate", that will severely complicate the conditionals (compared to simply hopping out using return). So Juha's challenging you to rewrite the looping conditionals without obfuscating them.
From: Juha Nieminen on 2 May 2010 03:58 In comp.lang.c++ Richard Heathfield <rjh(a)see.sig.invalid> wrote: > Juha Nieminen wrote: >> In comp.lang.c++ Richard Heathfield <rjh(a)see.sig.invalid> wrote: >>> If the data are sorted, bsearch. >>> >>> If not, why not? >>> >>> In any case, your loop condition expressions do not correctly describe >>> the conditions under which the loop will terminate. Please rewrite your >>> example so that they do, and then by all means ask me again if you wish. >> >> No offense, but it always amuses me how some C programmers try to >> wiggle themselves out of actually giving honest answers when they are >> presented with problematic situations related to their coding style, C, >> or both. > > Your paragraph, above, is a classic example. You know, an answer of "no, you are" is rather childish. How about presenting some actual arguments instead? I gave you a piece of code and asked you to modify it to conform to your principles. You did not do that. Who is trying to avoid answering to a challenge here? >> And I have no idea what you mean by "your loop condition expressions do >> not correctly describe the conditions under which the loop will terminate". > > That's the problem. > >> Of course they do. > > No, they don't. Then why do you refuse to tell how the loops should have been written to conform to your specifications? I explicitly asked you to modify the code so that it would. Why are you refusing to do so? >> Is this just another attempt at wiggling yourself out >> of actually giving the answer? > > No, it's an attempt at wiggling *your*self out of fixing your code. Fixing my code? Oh, so there's a bug in it? Kindly point out what the bug is, please. Or are you using the word "fixing" to mean "convert it to conform my views of how loops should be written"? If yes, then why are you asking *me* to do that? I don't know what *you* want the loops to look like. I'm *asking* you to explain it to me, with an actual example. Why are you refusing to do so? Why are you demanding me to guess wildly what is it that you want the code to look like? Can you even answer that question? Why are you refusing to show me your way of writing those loops? >> Is it *really* that hard to simply say "yes, in this particular example >> the 'return' is indeed the simplest way"? Does it hurt your pride or >> something? > > What has pride got to do with it? It's common sense, that's all. The > simplest way (and one of the fastest) to get from Tower Bridge Approach > to St Katharine's Way is to jump off the bridge, but that doesn't > necessarily mean it's the /best/ way. Then kindly show me this "best way".
From: spinoza1111 on 2 May 2010 09:37 On May 2, 3:58 pm, Juha Nieminen <nos...(a)thanks.invalid> wrote: > In comp.lang.c++ Richard Heathfield <r...(a)see.sig.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > Juha Nieminen wrote: > >> In comp.lang.c++ Richard Heathfield <r...(a)see.sig.invalid> wrote: > >>> If the data are sorted, bsearch. > > >>> If not, why not? > > >>> In any case, your loop condition expressions do not correctly describe > >>> the conditions under which the loop will terminate. Please rewrite your > >>> example so that they do, and then by all means ask me again if you wish. > > >> No offense, but it always amuses me how some C programmers try to > >> wiggle themselves out of actually giving honest answers when they are > >> presented with problematic situations related to their coding style, C, > >> or both. > > > Your paragraph, above, is a classic example. > > You know, an answer of "no, you are" is rather childish. How about > presenting some actual arguments instead? > > I gave you a piece of code and asked you to modify it to conform to > your principles. You did not do that. Who is trying to avoid answering > to a challenge here? > > >> And I have no idea what you mean by "your loop condition expressions do > >> not correctly describe the conditions under which the loop will terminate". > > > That's the problem. > > >> Of course they do. > > > No, they don't. > > Then why do you refuse to tell how the loops should have been written > to conform to your specifications? I explicitly asked you to modify the > code so that it would. Why are you refusing to do so? > > >> Is this just another attempt at wiggling yourself out > >> of actually giving the answer? > > > No, it's an attempt at wiggling *your*self out of fixing your code. > > Fixing my code? Oh, so there's a bug in it? Kindly point out what the > bug is, please. > > Or are you using the word "fixing" to mean "convert it to conform my > views of how loops should be written"? If yes, then why are you asking > *me* to do that? I don't know what *you* want the loops to look like. > I'm *asking* you to explain it to me, with an actual example. Why are > you refusing to do so? Why are you demanding me to guess wildly what is > it that you want the code to look like? > > Can you even answer that question? Why are you refusing to show me your > way of writing those loops? > > >> Is it *really* that hard to simply say "yes, in this particular example > >> the 'return' is indeed the simplest way"? Does it hurt your pride or > >> something? > > > What has pride got to do with it? It's common sense, that's all. The > > simplest way (and one of the fastest) to get from Tower Bridge Approach > > to St Katharine's Way is to jump off the bridge, but that doesn't > > necessarily mean it's the /best/ way. > > Then kindly show me this "best way". Juha, this guy is afraid to make a positive response, because he bullies people who make "mistakes" and he's afraid of eating his own dog food.
From: Nick Keighley on 3 May 2010 11:27
On 2 May, 14:37, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Juha, this guy is afraid to make a positive response, because he > bullies people who make "mistakes" and he's afraid of eating his own > dog food. this is a misuse of the term. You probably mean "take his own medicine" |