Re: calling convention stdcalll and cdecl call
* Igor Tandetnik:
"Alf P. Steinbach" <alfps@start.no> wrote in message
news:1rednZeHX8qKDB7VnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@posted.comnet
* Igor Tandetnik:
I only stated that stdcall, *as it exists today*, cannot support
variadic functions.
I think what you mean is not that /stdcall/ /cannot/.
I think what you mean is /Visual C++/ /does not/.
My position, of course, is that what Visual C++ does and documents is,
by definition, stdcall. Any modification of that is something else. We
have already discussed this at length.
Anwyay, the latter is correct, and the former is just nonsense.
Now here's a strong, well-reasoned argument. It's so much easier to
dismiss an inconvenient point as "nonsense" than to rebut it.
My first posting here in response to you was complete rebuttal in the form of
working code, where a function called as stdcall convention was variadic.
You're denying a matter of fact.
And thus perhaps calling participants that hold a different point of
view "stupid" or "liars" might not be such a good idea as it probably
seemed at the time. These terms sound pretty absolute to me.
Yes. When someone really annoys by being extraordinarily stupid I
tend to say so. But no, as I recall, wrt. you I chose to think you
thickheaded/stupid, which can be a temporal state, not an absolute
property, rather than liar. Even though in one example, which of
course I pointed out, you did include 2 lies in one very short
snippet of text.
Which, upon futher scrutiny, turned out not to be false.
That's at best a misunderstanding on your part.
I wonder if
holding my breath waiting for an apology might not be such a good idea.
On the other hand, prior to all of that, you did
effectively call me a whiner, by saying I had "complained" about
something, and as I recall also implying that in other words. You
reap as you sow, my friend.
I believed you suggested that your modified stdcall is a good idea (you
seem to still be arguing this elsewhere in this thread),
I'm not arguing for that technique. I'm just responding to invalid arguments
against it, including the incorrect idea that it is in any way a modification of
stdcall requirements. Would be unnatural if I didn't follow up on follow ups to
my own posting.
and expressed
regret that it's not supported by existing tools. I used "complain" in
the sense of "express unhappiness", not meaning any negative
connotations.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=complain
complain: express complaints, discontent, displeasure, or unhappiness
But perhaps it was a bad choice of words on my part, and for that I
sincerely apologize.
Huh. I'll be damned. OK. Trouble is, I think it's much more honest and better to
say what one really means and thinks than to undermine a person or use
misdirection or insinuations or such. Still I apologize for the language, if it
has offended.
Just count yourself lucky that you didn't do that with some of the
oldtimers (those who to me are oldtimers).
Do they routinely seek out and beat up pesky kids like me?
Yes, they did.
The most infamous such response (that I know of) was sent by private e-mail from
one such oldtimer to, I guess it was a newbie Usenet user; <url:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5aetyf>. Now that guy did just about the same in
public as in private e-mail, and he was so "good" at taking apart those who
posted technically incorrect opinions that there are huge archives of his most
"eloquent" tirades, but he's not been posting much for a while.
I hope you don't feel sought out or beaten up, though.
Cheers, & hth.,
- Alf
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?