(5+6%4)

[Disch]

uh huh. yea sure you're correct.

what about the "=" operator. that's not relevant in the current c++ 2014?

He actually is correct.

Being able to cherry pick individual things that it has right does not mean it can be used as a reference because it definitely has several things wrong.

So +1 Cubbi. If you are interested in learning C++, you should not be looking at anything from 1991 because any part of it could be wrong.

[MiiNiPaa]

what about the "=" operator. that's not relevant in the current c++ 2014?

No. Because now there is two different = operators.

[1CfG1hU5]

what's the other "=" assignment operator?

if you mean two equals ones. i know of = and ==

first assigns, 2nd checks equality

which one(s) are new?

can't say "=" doesn't work in current c++

is relevant

[1CfG1hU5]

now there "are" two different = operators
is is singular

[Disch]

can't say "=" doesn't work in current c++

is relevant

You are missing the point.

If any part of a source is wrong, then the entire source is untrustworthy. If it's wrong about one thing, it can be wrong about anything.

Turbo C++ should not be used as a reference because it is wrong about lots of things. Just because it's right about some of them doesn't matter, because there is absolutely no way to know what it's right about and what it's wrong about without using another source.

[MiiNiPaa]

what's the other "=" assignment operator?

Move (aka destructive) assigment.

can't say "=" doesn't work in current c++

There are 2 operators which works differently.

[1CfG1hU5]

then I can try to use the parts that are right. do not have visual studio 2013 with me at this
time. maybe I will retrieve my other computer soon. using tc++ in dosbox. that program from
http://sourceforge.net people play lots of old dos games.

the % modulus sign still works. gives remainder of int type. believe that hasn't changed.
maybe the number size has increased beyond 32,767. mostly sure is not unsigned.
116 % 98 is remainder 18. true in dos, true in visual studio. either by a function or line statement

if you could make a list here, could be helpful. can do some comparisons of my own
a small list to start

[1CfG1hU5]

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

int main()
{
    int x;

    x = 116 % 98;

    cout << "remainder value x is " << x;

   return 0;
}

this should work ok

[1CfG1hU5]

Disch:
So +1 Cubbi. If you are interested in learning C++, you should not be looking at anything from 1991 because any part of it could be wrong.

equals sign does not assign?

int x = 9; is wrong?

declaring int x is equal to 9 does work. why are you saying opposite?

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

int main()
{
    int x = 9;
    cout << "the number assigned to x is " << x;
    return 0;
}

this compiles and runs on cpp.sh

1991 assignment works today also

[Zhuge]

jt1 wrote:

equals sign does not assign?

int x = 9; is wrong?

declaring int x is equal to 9 does work. why are you saying opposite?

No one said any such thing. Where did you get that idea?

Disch said that you should not be looking at anything from 1991 because any part of it could be wrong. Just because some part is right does not make the resource a good one.

[firedraco]

then I can try to use the parts that are right.

Which you are supposed to know how? By looking at an up-to-date/correct source? Then you don't need the older one.

[1CfG1hU5]

Disch:
So +1 Cubbi. If you are interested in learning C++, you should not be looking at anything from 1991 because any part of it could be wrong.


1991 had variable assignments. 2014 has variable assignments.
the int x = 9; part aint wrong lol

sure standards have changed. not all ideas are lost and begun new or changed

should not have said "should not be looking at "anything" from 1991..."

[giblit]

They are saying anything COULD be wrong not that everything IS wrong. Anyways, why the heck would you want to use something that is over 20 years old as a reliable source? Just uninstall turbo c++, let it die, then install a different (newer) one. Also, for references use this site http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/ and cppreference http://en.cppreference.com/w/ they are a lot more up to date.

[Disch]

Disch:
So +1 Cubbi. If you are interested in learning C++, you should not be looking at anything from 1991 because any part of it could be wrong.

equals sign does not assign?

int x = 9; is wrong?

No. And you are still completely missing the point and misinterpretting what Cubbi and I are saying.

We're not saying Turbo C++ got the assignment operator wrong. We're saying that Turbo C++ got a lot of things wrong (at least by today's standards) and therefore it can't be used as a language reference because it does not accurately represent the language.

If one part of it is wrong... then any part of it could be wrong. Therefore it is a bad point of reference and should not be used for anything.

It's like a magic 8-ball. Just because it's right sometimes does not mean you can rely on it.



In fact... the reason Cubbi pointed this out in the first place was because you posted incorrect information about operator precedence. He then tried to explain to you that it was incorrect because you are using a bad point of reference (ie: Turbo C++) -- saying that it should never be used because it is so outdated.


....which you then countered by saying it was right about assignment... which makes absolutely no sense. Frankly I'm not sure whether or not you're trolling us.... but I'm not surprised Cubbi stopped responding.


EDIT:

In fact... after you posted the incorrect information about operator precedence, you said this:

you wrote:

operator precedence should be same today as was then

Which IS WRONG. It's not the same. You're wrong.

And it's because you're using a bad reference. You should not be using Turbo C++ as a reference. It does not reflect C++. It cannot be trusted.

[1CfG1hU5]

++ and -- still work lol

[MiiNiPaa]

Do you notice difference between "do not believe anything you have been told" and "everything you have been told is wrong"?

Nobody told that everything is wrong. You have been told that this halp is riddled with outdated and wrong information that you cannot check without using newer reference which defeats purpose of using outdated info in the first place. Does your help tells you why following happens:

int main()
{
    std::thread a;
    std::thread b;
    
    std::thread x;
    //Assigning a default constructed thread
    a = x; //Error
    //Assigning a default constructed thread
    b = std::thread(); //Works
}

[Disch]

Either jt1 is a troll or he's incredibly thick. Either way I'm wasting my time.

[1CfG1hU5]

disch:
If any part of a source is wrong, then the entire source is untrustworthy. If it's wrong about one thing, it can be wrong about anything.

Turbo C++ should not be used as a reference because it is wrong about lots of things. Just because it's right about some of them doesn't matter, because there is absolutely no way to know what it's right about and what it's wrong about without using another source.

jt1 response:
if any part of a source is wrong, the entire is untrusworthy
then next, if it's wrong about one thing, it can be wrong about anything

you said entire is untrustworty, and then later can be wrong about anything.
one is contrary to the other. either entirely untrustworthy or partial.

lots of the dos turbo c++ is right today. some standards have changed. do not believe
operator precedence could have changed much as c++ functionality would be severely different for example.

<<, >> bit shift
[] for arrays
() for function parameters
= for assign
!= for not equal
on and on

if you have a difference to prove, do a small list here

and go stuff your troll talk. i really don't give a crap

[1CfG1hU5]

disch:
In fact... after you posted the incorrect information about operator precedence, you said this:

you wrote:
operator precedence should be same today as was then


Which IS WRONG. It's not the same. You're wrong.

jt1 response:
the operator precedence is correct for the language c++ dos. like message above, i doubt
precedence has changed much. again make a list of differences and prove.

and as for should be same. should be is not absolutely is. if someone proves different,
i can accept the change or changes

type some proofs, i will compare

[MiiNiPaa]

you said entire is untrustworty, and then later can be wrong about anything.
one is contrary to the other. either entirely untrustworthy or partial.

I do not see a contradiction.
You can say that swindler is untrustworthy. That does not mean that every word he says is lie, but if you believe him that he just need money badly and because of that he sells $5000 diamond for $500, you deserve it.

do not believe operator precedence could have changed much as c++ functionality would be severely different for example.

Operator precedence did not change. At all. It is just your beloved souce that got it completely wrong from the very beginning.

Here, enlighten: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/operator_precedence