Re: So You Think You Can Const?

On 13/01/2025 20:30, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

On 13/01/2025 17:30, David Brown wrote:

On 13/01/2025 14:23, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

On 13/01/2025 09:58, David Brown wrote:

On 13/01/2025 04:10, James Kuyper wrote:

On 1/9/25 21:51, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

>

You can of course also argue that it is best to have the code ordered according to the normal flow of operations - error handling in the middle of the normal code flow can make it hard to follow the algorithm of a function.  (C++ exceptions are an extreme version of this.)  Some people might prefer a compromise:

>
Some people are just wrong and not even honest at that.
>
   **Please don't mind and don't feed the trolls**:

>
There are a few trollish characters in this newsgroup, but I don't believe I have seen any in this thread.

<snipped>
 Then, with all due respect, you are being naive: "let's also not forget to tell the OP how to write code" is a piece of it, for example.

Could you point to the post from which you are quoting?

  But of course from an impolite and vile request (reread how I was asked initially) to me being the impolite one: it happens all the time everywhere, I don't even mind anymore.

Could you point to the post where someone made an "impolite and vile request" of you?  Perhaps I missed something, but I haven't seen anything remotely like that.  Example quotations from posts directly upthread from here include:
"I would be happy for you to expand on why you say that."
"I was not trying to tell anyone how to write code."
I am completely at a loss to see how these could be viewed as "vile".

 Nor it can become my problem that people can hardly ready, indeed literalism, mangling quotes especially never going past a formal level that misses all that is substantial... which is where I said not all code paths are ifs: only formally those two pieces of code are equivalent.
 In fact my explanations go quite past what is just obvious: what does it even mean "in the long run?", or that formal is just half of the story and not even the most relevant, more relevant is the concrete substance...?  And should I just repeat myself?  Really?  For that questioning??
 

It is very difficult to figure out what you are trying to say here.  Let me try to rephrase it, before addressing it.  If you don't think my rephrasing is accurate, then my response to it is probably not relevant and should be ignored.
You are annoyed because someone told you that the misleading indentation you complained about, was due to artifacts of Usenet post quoting. Perhaps you feel that was a side-track.  Is that right?
If so, then be aware that this is Usenet - people are free to post what they like, and discuss what they like.  It is common practice for a thread to branch into subthreads as people latch on to particular things that interest them or that they think are worth pointing out to others.

I had the misfortune of calling out the utter and ugly bullshit from these characters in the past in other groups: this gang of nazi-retarded and mostly academic spammers and polluters of all ponds just hates my guts since then.

>
Perhaps you have mixed up threads in different newsgroups?

 Or perhaps you just don't know and in fact don't need to know all the gory details and pasty history.  I am sorry that I even have to explain, to you, who have been kind, polite, professional, to the point, helpful and competently so, etc.: and not just you of course.
 

You haven't explained /anything/.  As far as I can see, this was a calm and reasoned thread that had branched into a number of aspects of "const" in C programming, with some exchanges of thoughts, different styles, and some pros and cons of various choices.  Then you made some consecutive posts that were increasingly hard to understand, and suddenly you are accusing multiple unnamed posters of trolling, dishonesty, "vile", etc.  I simply don't get it.  I don't see anything from anyone who could have provoked that reaction.  I see people answering your questions, you thanking them for the answers, people branching out and discussing other related topics, and sometimes other people asking you things.
And I've been a regular in this group for far more years than I care to remember.  I "know" pretty much everyone in this thread, as most of them have also been here forever.  None of the people posting here comes anywhere close to deserving the accusations you gave - none of them have /ever/ come close to that in the history of this group.  (I, on the other hand, /have/ provoked extreme reactions on occasion.)

BTW, on that C++ vs C issue (you know who you are), I respect that but I'd say it's wrong: C and C++ share nothing but some syntax, and one is high-level, not the other...

>
While there is one person who posts primarily about C++ in this C group, and that can be annoying, it is not unreasonable to make occasional references or comparisons to C++ precisely because they are strongly related languages that share a great deal of overlap.

 There is a discussion going on and not only in this thread about e.g. "destructors" and what that means: of course I am referring to that and nothing but that.  And there is nothing I need to add to that either: those who know already know (what I mean), and those who don't, please at least learn how to use question marks instead of just pretending. Mileages may very: your impoliteness or worse I won't take lightly.
 And I hope that at least makes sense, and again I apologize to the innocent and well intentioned, but what can we do, this is the world we live in....  Anyway, of course, you be the judge.  I am out, indeed I am here for the C language, not for anything else: and as far as I am concerned this thread (surely my questions) is done.
 

If that is all the explanation we will get for your outburst, then let's leave it there.  But no, you are not making sense at all.