error while using template with ostream operator

Pages: 12
@Againtry,
No, the issue was that of multiple template parameters as raised here:
http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/general/267252/#msg1149822

My second try at separating declaration and definition was to avoid the issue raised in allowing any (somewhat unnaturally crafted) overloaded version of << <T2> to get at an object of separate template type <T1>. I was aware of being able - if one really wanted to - to do precisely that (as @JLBorges showed). However, since I code software to do practical things for my own work I wasn't concerned about it. Whilst I entirely accept @JLBorges had every right to raise the issue, his description of it as "fatuous" was beyond reasonable forum etiquette.

I don't mind whether the template parameters are called T1 or T or whatever - that wasn't the issue - so ... never mind. Leave it as green ticked.
Well yes, the fatuosity remark rankled me too but perhaps uncharacteristically I 'researched' what was meant in the way I described, found I was going off at a diseased tangent of promiscuity and decided enough was enough and moved on, on the grounds that, as I later indicated, 3 of the greatest minds had reached a satisfactory solution to OP's concerns. We had 4 winners! Also, nominally a billion chinese as a bare minimum aren't in the slightest concerned.

I had a special interest in the problem because, stating the obvious, my contemptuous remark about line 17 on reflection required me to make amends to OP for misinterpreting his initial post as a hoax.

OP is one of the few who has said thanks and green ticked the box. I am humbled and eternally grateful to that person.

Except for an element of tidiness in that a single T 'looks better' to my eye and the unrequited (for me) business about infiltration I guess we both remain a little perturbed, even rankled, until borges decides to behave professionally, something I always pride myself on without a word of a lie.

> his description of it as "fatuous" was beyond reasonable forum etiquette.

My description of it as fatuous was an accurate description. Any doubt about that was dispelled by your subsequent post in response to it. I call it as I see it; I'm not here to mollycoddle your inflated ego.


> the fatuosity remark rankled me too but perhaps uncharacteristically I 'researched' what was meant in the way
> I described, found I was going off at a diseased tangent of promiscuity and decided enough was enough

You are an ass. The next time that you do not understand the meaning of a word. look it up in a dictionary. There are many available online; these are the first four that duckduckgo threw up on a search for 'fatuous dictionary'.

dictionary.com: foolish or inane, especially in an unconscious, complacent manner; silly
thefreedictionary.com: Foolish or silly, especially in a smug or self-satisfied way
merriam-webster.com: complacently or inanely foolish
dictionary.cambridge.org: stupid, not correct, or not carefully thought about


> until borges decides to behave professionally, something I always pride myself

You have shown yourself to be an obnoxious, ill-bred, foul-mouthed lout. On more than one occasion.
(Personal insults are cheap and easy to bandy about; you two are not the only ones who can do it.)
“borgese 12499
> his description of it as "fatuous" was beyond reasonable forum etiquette.

My description of it as fatuous was an accurate description. Any doubt about that was dispelled by your subsequent post in response to it. I call it as I see it; I'm not here to mollycoddle your inflated ego.

> the fatuosity remark rankled me too but perhaps uncharacteristically I 'researched' what was meant in the way
> I described, found I was going off at a diseased tangent of promiscuity and decided enough was enough

You are an ass. The next time that you do not understand the meaning of a word. look it up in a dictionary. There are many available online; these are the first four that duckduckgo threw up on a search for 'fatuous dictionary'.

dictionary.com: foolish or inane, especially in an unconscious, complacent manner; silly
thefreedictionary.com: Foolish or silly, especially in a smug or self-satisfied way
merriam-webster.com: complacently or inanely foolish
dictionary.cambridge.org: stupid, not correct, or not carefully thought about


> until borges decides to behave professionally, something I always pride myself

You have shown yourself to be an obnoxious, ill-bred, foul-mouthed lout. On more than one occasion.
(Personal insults are cheap and easy to bandy about; you two are not the only ones who can do it.)”
You have shown yourself to be an obnoxious, ill-bred, foul-mouthed lout.
This is the language style of an aging nun. Did I get it right Sister?
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.
Pages: 12