Re: So You Think You Can Const?

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.  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.
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??

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.

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.
-Julio