The_Sage & void main()

[Bonzo]

Re: The_Sage & void main()

In article <blgj51$jvq$1@n ewstree.wise.ed t.ericsson.se>,
"Attila Feher" <attila.feher@l mf.ericsson.se> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Your time is up. You are not worthy of our attention. You have lost. You
> will be ignored.[/color]

Right. I don't think you are capable of it. Prove me wrong, please, by
not responding to that idiot.

[WW]

Re: The_Sage &amp; void main()

Bonzo wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <blgj51$jvq$1@n ewstree.wise.ed t.ericsson.se>,
> "Attila Feher" <attila.feher@l mf.ericsson.se> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Your time is up. You are not worthy of our attention. You have
>> lost. You will be ignored.[/color]
>
> Right. I don't think you are capable of it.[/color]

If it makes you feel good or secure, please by all means: think it!
[color=blue]
> Prove me wrong, please, by
> not responding to that idiot.[/color]

Which one?

--
WW aka Attila

[Bob Bell]

Re: The_Sage &amp; void main()

The_Sage <theeSage@azrmc i.net> wrote in message news:<oj7snv0hb j0o6c479hqi7221 ju21gbh2tf@4ax. com>...[color=blue][color=green]
> >The phrase "but otherwise" is being used to mean "but in all other
> >respects".[/color]
>
> Bzzzt! Wrong. Let's conduct a simple experiment here by substituting your make
> believe definition in the sentence in question and see if it makes sense...
>
> "It shall have a return type of type int but in all other respects its type is
> implementation-defined"
>
> Since the return type was defined as int, there is no other respect[/color]

Bzzzt! Wrong. You are ignoring the distinction between "type" and
"return type." They are not the same thing.

Everything else you say follows from this simple mistake, and is
therefore also wrong and not worth commenting on.

Bob

[The_Sage]

Re: The_Sage &amp; void main()

>Reply to article by: "WW" <wolof@freemail .hu>[color=blue]
>Date written: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 04:34:43 +0300
>MsgID:<bll83b$ t4g$1@phys-news1.kolumbus. fi>[/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Post Chapter 28 or crawl away.[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Only if Chapter 28 contradicts the ISO Standard at 3.6.1 Main
>>function paragraph 2 where it states, "It shall have a return type of
>>type int BUT OTHERWISE its type is implementation-defined". Since you
>>aren't competent enough to demonstrate that for us, tuck your tail
>>between your legs little doggy and run away. Troll somewhere else
>>Attila de Fuhrer.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>Do not mix me with your father.[/color]

So Attila is my Father? It is bad enough that you can't tell the difference
between a return type and a parameter, or that ExitProcess() is not the same
thing as EndProgram(), now you cannot even tell the difference between male and
female?

The Sage

=============== =============== =============== =============== =
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The biggest problem in the world, could have been solved
when it was small..." -- Lao Tzu
=============== =============== =============== =============== =

[The_Sage]

Re: The_Sage &amp; void main()

>Reply to article by: belvis@pacbell. net (Bob Bell)[color=blue]
>Date written: 4 Oct 2003 13:07:29 -0700
>MsgID:<c87c1cf b.0310041207.49 9b4503@posting. google.com>[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Bzzzt! Wrong. Let's conduct a simple experiment here by substituting your make
>>believe definition in the sentence in question and see if it makes sense...[/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> "It shall have a return type of type int but in all other respects its type is
>> implementation-defined"[/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Since the return type was defined as int, there is no other respect[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>Bzzzt! Wrong. You are ignoring the distinction between "type" and
>"return type." They are not the same thing.[/color]

The subject of the sentence above is "return type", therefore the when "type" is
mentioned the second time, it clearly is still talking about return type...what
other "type" would they be talking about? Please explain. The non-return type?
We're they talking about another type from some other sentence in some other
chapter and paragraph a few pages back?

You stand corrected.
[color=blue]
>Everything else you say follows from this simple mistake, and is
>therefore also wrong and not worth commenting on.[/color]

Your mistake is commenting on something that proves your ignorance when if you
had only kept your mouth shut, we wouldn't have known if you were ignorant or
not.

The Sage

=============== =============== =============== =============== =
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The biggest problem in the world, could have been solved
when it was small..." -- Lao Tzu
=============== =============== =============== =============== =

[Bob Bell]

Re: The_Sage &amp; void main()

The_Sage <theeSage@azrmc i.net> wrote in message news:<pllunvk65 g6935iuvtjb2k4q sl716elp6m@4ax. com>...[color=blue][color=green]
> >Reply to article by: belvis@pacbell. net (Bob Bell)
> >Date written: 4 Oct 2003 13:07:29 -0700
> >MsgID:<c87c1cf b.0310041207.49 9b4503@posting. google.com>[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>Bzzzt! Wrong. Let's conduct a simple experiment here by substituting your make
> >>believe definition in the sentence in question and see if it makes sense...[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> "It shall have a return type of type int but in all other respects its type is
> >> implementation-defined"[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>Since the return type was defined as int, there is no other respect[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> >Bzzzt! Wrong. You are ignoring the distinction between "type" and
> >"return type." They are not the same thing.[/color]
>
> The subject of the sentence above is "return type", therefore the when "type" is
> mentioned the second time, it clearly is still talking about return type...what
> other "type" would they be talking about? Please explain. The non-return type?
> We're they talking about another type from some other sentence in some other
> chapter and paragraph a few pages back?
>
> You stand corrected.[/color]

Bzzzt! Wrong again. Care to go for three?

The terms "type" and "return type" refer to two different things.
"Return type" means the type that the function returns. "Type" refers
to the entire signature of the function, which includes the function's
linkage, its return type, and the number, type and position of the
function's parameters.

What was that about ignorance, Mr. "I can't tell the difference
between a function's type and its return type"?

Bob

[Mike Wahler]

Re: The_Sage &amp; void main()

"Bob Bell" <belvis@pacbell .net> wrote in message
news:c87c1cfb.0 310042328.21bec a42@posting.goo gle.com...[color=blue]
> The_Sage <theeSage@azrmc i.net> wrote in message > > You stand corrected.
>
> Bzzzt! Wrong again. Care to go for three?
>
> The terms "type" and "return type" refer to two different things.
> "Return type" means the type that the function returns. "Type" refers
> to the entire signature of the function, which includes the function's
> linkage, its return type, and the number, type and position of the
> function's parameters.
>
> What was that about ignorance, Mr. "I can't tell the difference
> between a function's type and its return type"?
>
> Bob[/color]

Bob:

This troll isn't worth your time. Review the other
posts in this thread.

I suggest you not waste any more time on him.

-Mike

[WW]

Re: The_Sage &amp; void main()

The_Sage wrote:[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> between your legs little doggy and run away. Troll somewhere else
>>> Attila de Fuhrer.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
>> Do not mix me with your father.[/color]
>
> So Attila is my Father?[/color]

No. The Fuhrer is.
[color=blue]
> now you cannot
> even tell the difference between male and female?[/color]

Ah. Your father is female. OK. Good for you. *PLONK*

--
WW aka Attila

[Bob Bell]

Re: The_Sage &amp; void main()

"Mike Wahler" <mkwahler@mkwah ler.net> wrote in message news:<SpQfb.268 0$gA1.1561@news read3.news.pas. earthlink.net>. ..[color=blue]
> "Bob Bell" <belvis@pacbell .net> wrote in message
> news:c87c1cfb.0 310042328.21bec a42@posting.goo gle.com...[color=green]
> > The_Sage <theeSage@azrmc i.net> wrote in message > > You stand corrected.
> >
> > Bzzzt! Wrong again. Care to go for three?
> >
> > The terms "type" and "return type" refer to two different things.
> > "Return type" means the type that the function returns. "Type" refers
> > to the entire signature of the function, which includes the function's
> > linkage, its return type, and the number, type and position of the
> > function's parameters.
> >
> > What was that about ignorance, Mr. "I can't tell the difference
> > between a function's type and its return type"?
> >
> > Bob[/color]
>
> Bob:
>
> This troll isn't worth your time. Review the other
> posts in this thread.
>
> I suggest you not waste any more time on him.[/color]

Thanks, I appreciate the suggestion. I have reviewed a lot of this
thread, and I have no reason to believe that Mr. "semicolons are
optional at the end of compound statements" will see the truth of what
I say, where so many smarter people than I have failed; I'm just
blowing off steam.

Bob

[The_Sage]

Re: The_Sage &amp; void main()

>Reply to article by: belvis@pacbell. net (Bob Bell)[color=blue]
>Date written: 5 Oct 2003 00:28:28 -0700
>MsgID:<c87c1cf b.0310042328.21 beca42@posting. google.com>[/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> "It shall have a return type of type int but in all other respects its type is
>>>> implementation-defined"[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>The subject of the sentence above is "return type", therefore the when "type" is
>>mentioned the second time, it clearly is still talking about return type...what
>>other "type" would they be talking about? Please explain. The non-return type?
>>We're they talking about another type from some other sentence in some other
>>chapter and paragraph a few pages back?[/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>You stand corrected.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>Bzzzt! Wrong again. Care to go for three?[/color]
[color=blue]
>The terms "type" and "return type" refer to two different things.
>"Return type" means the type that the function returns. "Type" refers
>to the entire signature of the function, which includes the function's
>linkage, its return type, and the number, type and position of the
>function's parameters.[/color]
[color=blue]
>What was that about ignorance, Mr. "I can't tell the difference
>between a function's type and its return type"?[/color]

Bzzzt! Wrong again. Care to go for four? At the rate you are going, you might
not understand simple elementary english for another six or seven tries. But
let's try and make this so simple, even a total illiterate imbecile like you can
undestand...

"It shall have a return type of type int"

That is a complete sentence in itself. The main topic/subject is: RETURN TYPE.
Any questions? Now we augment that sentence with the conjunction "but"...

"...but..."

If they were changing the main topic/subject, they would have started a new
paragraph/sentence. Since they didn't, the main topic/subject is still: RETURN
TYPE. "But" means "on the contrary; on the other hand; with the exception". And
what exception is there to the return type?

"...otherwi se in all other respects its type is implementation-defined"

"Otherwise" is an adverb. It means "In another way; differently; under other
circumstances; in other respects". So for all you illiterate idiots out there,
like Bob Bell, what does that sentence tell us about the return type? It tells
us that...

"...main() shall have a return type of type int, with the exception that in
another way, in all other respects, main() can have a return type of
<implementati on/defined>"

It has been a pleasure exposing your complete ignorance in this matter for the
whole world to see.

The Sage

=============== =============== =============== =============== =
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The biggest problem in the world, could have been solved
when it was small..." -- Lao Tzu
=============== =============== =============== =============== =

[The_Sage]

Re: The_Sage &amp; void main()

>Reply to article by: "WW" <wolof@freemail .hu>[color=blue]
>Date written: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 13:34:41 +0300
>MsgID:<blos3p$ 37j$1@phys-news1.kolumbus. fi>[/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>between your legs little doggy and run away. Troll somewhere else
>>>>Attila de Fuhrer.[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Do not mix me with your father.[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>So Attila is my Father?[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>No. The Fuhrer is.[/color]

No, A fuhrer can be of any sex, not just male. And you logical reasoning
abilities aren't very good, seeing the title was Attila, a female, de Fuhrer, an
overbearing obstinate tyranical leader.

Don't quit you day job to ever become a programmer, since to be a good
programmer, you need good logical thinking abilities...and you definitely do not
seem to have good logical thinking abilities.

The Sage

=============== =============== =============== =============== =
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The biggest problem in the world, could have been solved
when it was small..." -- Lao Tzu
=============== =============== =============== =============== =

[WW]

Re: The_Sage &amp; void main()

The_Sage wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>> Reply to article by: "WW" <wolof@freemail .hu>
>> Date written: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 13:34:41 +0300
>> MsgID:<blos3p$3 7j$1@phys-news1.kolumbus. fi>[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>> between your legs little doggy and run away. Troll somewhere else
>>>>> Attila de Fuhrer.[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> Do not mix me with your father.[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> So Attila is my Father?[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
>> No. The Fuhrer is.[/color]
>
> No, A fuhrer can be of any sex, not just male. And you logical
> reasoning abilities aren't very good, seeing the title was Attila, a
> female, de Fuhrer, an overbearing obstinate tyranical leader.[/color]

Attila is a male name you moron.

--
WW aka Attila

[Bob Bell]

Re: The_Sage &amp; void main()

The_Sage <theeSage@azrmc i.net> wrote in message news:<16e1ovg8a kou7s7ipk1jikgg lvhhk94m9r@4ax. com>...[color=blue][color=green]
> >Reply to article by: belvis@pacbell. net (Bob Bell)
> >Date written: 5 Oct 2003 00:28:28 -0700
> >MsgID:<c87c1cf b.0310042328.21 beca42@posting. google.com>[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>>> "It shall have a return type of type int but in all other respects its type is
> >>>> implementation-defined"[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>The subject of the sentence above is "return type", therefore the when "type" is
> >>mentioned the second time, it clearly is still talking about return type...what
> >>other "type" would they be talking about? Please explain. The non-return type?
> >>We're they talking about another type from some other sentence in some other
> >>chapter and paragraph a few pages back?[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>You stand corrected.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> >Bzzzt! Wrong again. Care to go for three?[/color]
>[color=green]
> >The terms "type" and "return type" refer to two different things.
> >"Return type" means the type that the function returns. "Type" refers
> >to the entire signature of the function, which includes the function's
> >linkage, its return type, and the number, type and position of the
> >function's parameters.[/color]
>[color=green]
> >What was that about ignorance, Mr. "I can't tell the difference
> >between a function's type and its return type"?[/color]
>
> Bzzzt! Wrong again. Care to go for four? At the rate you are going, you might
> not understand simple elementary english for another six or seven tries. But
> let's try and make this so simple, even a total illiterate imbecile like you can
> undestand...[/color]

The Sage drives down the court, weaving past logic, dodging past
facts, he shoots, HE SCORES! He's done it again, folks. I knew he
wouldn't let us down.

Let's watch it again in slow motion and see just how he screwed up
this time.
[color=blue]
> "It shall have a return type of type int"
>
> That is a complete sentence in itself. The main topic/subject is: RETURN TYPE.
> Any questions? Now we augment that sentence with the conjunction "but"...[/color]

You've got to hand it to The Sage, folks, he starts right off with the
boldest of blunders. The instant replay doesn't lie, so let's take a
closer look...
[color=blue]
> The main topic/subject is: RETURN TYPE.[/color]

For all those for whom English is a second language, let's be more
explict. The Sage is claiming that "return type" is the subject of the
clause "It shall have a return type of type int", yet as anyone with
an elementary education in English knows, the subject of that clause
is "It", which is a reference to the subject of the previous
sentences, and therefore means the main function.

Let's watch some more and see where he takes this...
[color=blue]
> "...but..."
>
> If they were changing the main topic/subject, they would have started a new
> paragraph/sentence. Since they didn't, the main topic/subject is still: RETURN
> TYPE.[/color]

Ooo, that's got to hurt, people. The subject is still: the main
function, but that doesn't matter when you play at The Sage's level.
[color=blue]
> "But" means "on the contrary; on the other hand; with the exception". And
> what exception is there to the return type?
>
> "...otherwi se in all other respects its type is implementation-defined"
>
> "Otherwise" is an adverb. It means "In another way; differently; under other
> circumstances; in other respects". So for all you illiterate idiots out there,
> like Bob Bell, what does that sentence tell us about the return type? It tells
> us that...[/color]

You've got to admit, folks, The Sage is slippery. Note the deft way he
avoids linking the word "its" in this clause to the subject of the
previous clause. For everyone else, it's clear that "its type" refers
to the main function's type. But by cleverly slipping in a personal
attack at just the right moment, he manages to deflect attention from
this oversight.

Let's pause for a recap. The Sage

-- failed to grasp the difference between a function's type and its
return type
-- failed to parse the sentence in question to realize the subject of
the first clause was the main function
-- failed to realize the subsequent clause was modifying the first
clause's subject, the main function

They don't call him The Sage for nothing.
[color=blue]
> "...main() shall have a return type of type int, with the exception that in
> another way, in all other respects, main() can have a return type of
> <implementati on/defined>"[/color]

And there you have it, folks, all wrapped up in a neat little package.
I've got to hand it to The Sage, I don't see bungling of this caliber
every day.
[color=blue]
> It has been a pleasure exposing your complete ignorance in this matter for the
> whole world to see.[/color]

On the contrary, the pleasure has been all mine. It's been fun, but
I've fed you long enough, I think.

Bye bye,

Bob

[The_Sage]

Re: The_Sage &amp; void main()

>Reply to article by: belvis@pacbell. net (Bob Bell)[color=blue]
>Date written: 5 Oct 2003 22:14:02 -0700
>MsgID:<c87c1cf b.0310052114.62 dd34c6@posting. google.com>[/color]

<Snipped the childish irrelevent BS>
[color=blue][color=green]
>> "It shall have a return type of type int"[/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>That is a complete sentence in itself. The main topic/subject is: RETURN TYPE.
>>Any questions? Now we augment that sentence with the conjunction "but"...[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>You've got to hand it to The Sage, folks, he starts right off with the
>boldest of blunders. The instant replay doesn't lie, so let's take a
>closer look...[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>The main topic/subject is: RETURN TYPE.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>For all those for whom English is a second language,[/color]

Well it certainly isn't your first, so that's a good start. You might also try a
little elementary logic, as you seem seriously lacking in that quality as well.
[color=blue]
>let's be more
>explict. The Sage is claiming that "return type" is the subject of the
>clause "It shall have a return type of type int", yet as anyone with
>an elementary education in English knows, the subject of that clause
>is "It", which is a reference to the subject of the previous
>sentences, and therefore means the main function.[/color]

And here is where you prove your illiteracy beyond a doubt. Substituting "main
function" for "it" gives us...

"The main function shall have a return type of type int"

So the subject is the return type of the main function. Duh!
[color=blue]
>Let's watch some more and see where he takes this...[/color]

No problem...

"...but otherwise in all other respects the main functions type is
implementation-defined"

Clear as a bell; no doubt about it. The main function has a return type that
shall be int but otherwise can be anything you care to define or implement. Only
a total imbecile would try to twist it around to mean anything else.

Thank you for the pleasure of being able to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a
doubt to these NGs, what an illiterate idiot you are. Case closed. Don't come
back until you can finally get a clue.

The Sage

=============== =============== =============== =============== =
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The biggest problem in the world, could have been solved
when it was small..." -- Lao Tzu
=============== =============== =============== =============== =

[The_Sage]

Re: The_Sage &amp; void main()

>Reply to article by: "WW" <wolof@freemail .hu>[color=blue]
>Date written: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 07:31:08 +0300
>MsgID:<blqr65$ qn2$1@phys-news1.kolumbus. fi>[/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>>>between your legs little doggy and run away. Troll somewhere else
>>>>>>Attila de Fuhrer.[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>>Do not mix me with your father.[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>So Attila is my Father?[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>No. The Fuhrer is.[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>No, A fuhrer can be of any sex, not just male. And you logical
>>reasoning abilities aren't very good, seeing the title was Attila, a
>>female, de Fuhrer, an overbearing obstinate tyranical leader.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>Attila is a male name you moron.[/color]

Attila is feminine when used as a *first* name, you idiot. Attila the Hun was
the name of King whose *last* name was Attila. The key giveaway here is the -a
suffix, which is the feminine form of english given names, such as Fredirica
(Fred) or Andrea (Andrew).

Can't you get anything right?

The Sage

=============== =============== =============== =============== =
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The biggest problem in the world, could have been solved
when it was small..." -- Lao Tzu
=============== =============== =============== =============== =