On Apr 14, 12:51 pm, "Leigh Johnston" <le...@i42.co.uk> wrote:
"Jerry Coffin" <jerryvcof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
In article <bZednVFnQ6c3TVjWnZ2dnUVZ8vydn...@giganews.com>,
Not necessarily trying to contradict your conclusion, but it doesn't
look to me like everything you've said is entirely cut and dried.
1) Don't use the unsigned integral types despite the fact that
the C++ standard library is full of their use.
I could as well point out that the standard library contains quite a
few examples of statically allocated buffers and (worse) returning
pointers to those buffers to the user (e.g. many of the time-oriented
That was a reasonable decision when it was made, and now the standard
library is stuck with it, even though it's now far from ideal.
I was thinking more of the template containers and allocators rather than
the C runtime subset which is antiquated yes.
So the parts of std that Leigh agrees with are "perfectly fine"
and the parts Leigh disagrees with are "antiquated". Pathetic.
He is pointing out your persistent faulty reasoning that common
or "std does it" equals excellent or best pratice. You make this
mistake repeatedly /despite/ your "think for yourself" mantra.
2) Don't use abstract interfaces (as they advocate against using
public virtual functions).
Nonsense! You can have abstract interfaces without public virtual
functions. At least AFAIK, this was first advocated by Herb Sutter,
who certainly is NOT an idiot (e.g. he is on the standard committee,
so he helped design a fair amount of what you're treating as
exemplary in your previous point).
Not nonsense, this what I mean by an abstract interface:
virtual void foo() = 0;
virtual void bar() = 0;
i.e. a class type that contains pure virtual functions and nothing else, no
state, no invariants, no need for non-virtual wrappers.
Who cares what /you/ mean by "abstract interface"? You do not
define the terms of the debate and especially not the terms of
This is a perfectly valid idiom and a counter-example to the
"don't use public virtuals" mantra.
Yeah yeah, another "perfectly valid" "perfectly fine" Divine
"It's Fine" Leigh "argument". FYI stating the same claim over
and over again does not increase its probability. What does,
which you don't seem to have, is /coherent reasoning/.