FAQ update

[z05DSL3A]

cire, thanks for the example, I will take a close look at it. but ...

If we're required to implement an l-value as something that resides in memory, and a reference as a pointer to that memory, how is this possible?

I didn't say that a reference has to be a pointer to memory.

As to how is this possible (assuming you mean the code being the same), with your simplistic example the optimiser looks at the code has decided you don't need most of the junk and generates some that doesn't have references and such. Just my initial take on it.

[Duthomhas]

Grey Wolf wrote:

the tone of that section, to me at least, comes across that you think people that don't agree with “pass-by-pointer” are wrong and idiots.

Fair enough. I've tried not to appear condescending to one side over the other at all. Is there anything in particular you think stands out to give that impression? Is there a better way to phrase it?

Reviewing it, I notice that most of my efforts to make fun of people who are spending time arguing over the issue are in part one of that FAQ, but part two doesn't have as many obvious references to it as it could...

htirwin wrote:

The

Everything you need to know about files.

title is misleading. At the least, "Everything" should be changed to "Some".

Thank you. Yes, obviously there is some discrimination going on here. It is only everything you need to know about source code files.

Sure, there are other things that are good to know, but the intent of that FAQ is to explain source code files sufficient to get started. (Which is what you need to know, nothing more.)

And the amount of space for the title of the page is limited -- I'm pushing it as is. "[Only] some of the things you need to know about [source code] files" is insufficient. A FAQ is worthless if it doesn't answer a question. So if you can come up with a better title that expresses the idea that the FAQ gives you enough information about source code files to work with clarity, I'm all for it. (I'll see if I can figure a more precisely succinct title as well.)

Also, if you feel I've left something necessary and important out about source files, let me know and I'll fix it.


Thank you all for your interest and criticisms!

[z05DSL3A]

Duoas,

I don't have alternative wordage but the bias is shown in:

"That leads the “two ways only” people to proclaim that this method ..."

"To three-wayers, the real argument to the function is not the pointer, but the referent. They consider the actual mechanics subservient to the intent..."

One 'side' proclaims while the other considers.

"Just so you know, “pass-by-pointer” is a not-made-up term, used by smart, technical people in the industry (like here)."

If you don't subscribe to the notion of “pass-by-pointer” you are not one of the smart, technical people.

"So if anyone ever gives you grief over it, tell them to get over it and move on."

So what, don't have a discussion about the different view just dismiss them.

[Duthomhas]

Re: proclaim vs consider
Point taken. I'll fix it.

Re: not smart
Okay, I can see that. I don't think I'll change the FAQ's point that pass-by-pointer is a valid term used in the industry, but I'll try to reword it to be less pejorative.

Re: dismiss them
I'll see if I can reword that as well. The point wasn't to dismiss people with a different view. The point was to dismiss people who want to quibble over established vocabulary (and by "established", I mean vocabulary that has been in use at least since you and I were born), and what it means.

[edit] Done. Let me know if that's not better.

[booradley60]

In the "Books worth their weight in gold" section ( http://www.cplusplus.com/faq/beginners/books/ ):

Bjorne Stroustrup

Ha, also, such pedantry on my part makes me ill. I'll look over it soon and try to give more helpful feedback. :)

[BHX]

@booradley60
Just quoting it may not make it obvious since there are gentlemen with Bjorne as a name. You should have at least pointed out that the 'o' should have been an 'a' Bjarne Stroustrup.

[Duthomhas]

Holy crap! Fixed!

[Duthomhas]

Okay, I think I've managed to tone down the pas-by-foo FAQ to something more acceptable.

What do you think?
http://www.cplusplus.com/faq/beginners/call-by/

[z05DSL3A]

It's good. :0)

[Duthomhas]

All righty then...

i = ++i + i++, undefined behavior, sequence points, etc.

http://www.cplusplus.com/faq/beginners/undefined/

The detail is there... but I'm also going to ask twicker to see if I can't improve the formatting CSS a little. (At the moment, those quotes are hacks... since <blockquote> and <q> don't actually do anything pretty...)

[edit] (I'd like to see quotes look something like this http://home.comcast.net/~michaelthomasgreer/temp/pretty-quote.html)