Topic: Change official RAII to CADRe
Author: Tony V E <tvaneerd@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 06:59:42 -0000
Raw View
--047d7bb043acc1729404ce32ba98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
P. S. It is really "Responsibility Acquisition Is Initialization".
:-)
(see Jon Kalb's boostcon talk)
------------------------------
*From:* "Nevin Liber" <nevin@eviloverlord.com>
*To:* "std-proposals@isocpp.org" <std-proposals@isocpp.org>
*Sent:* 6 November, 2012 10:22 AM
*Subject:* Re: [std-proposals] Change official RAII to CADRe
On 6 November 2012 07:51, Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we could agree that the RAII acronym isn't the best choice for
> the technique it describes/tries to describe.
>
I have no idea what this has to do with the standard, as neither RAII nor
"Resource Acquisition Is Initialization" appears in it.
--
Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com> (847) 691-1404
--
--
--047d7bb043acc1729404ce32ba98
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head></head><body>P. S. =A0It is really "Responsibility Acquisi=
tion Is Initialization".<div>:-)<br><br><div id=3D"1330154144936-sig-i=
d">(see Jon Kalb's boostcon talk)</div><br><hr><div><strong>From:</stro=
ng> "Nevin Liber" <<a href=3D"mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com">n=
evin@eviloverlord.com</a>><br>
<strong>To:</strong> "<a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp.org">std-=
proposals@isocpp.org</a>" <<a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp.o=
rg">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>><br><strong>Sent:</strong> 6 November, =
2012 10:22 AM<br>
<strong>Subject:</strong> Re: [std-proposals] Change official RAII to CADRe=
<br></div><br>On 6 November 2012 07:51, Arthur Tchaikovsky <span dir=3D"ltr=
"><<a href=3D"mailto:atch.cpp@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">atch.cpp@gmai=
l.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I think we could agree that the RAII acronym isn't the best choice for<=
br> the technique it describes/tries to describe.<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><fo=
nt color=3D"#888888"><br></font></span></blockquote><div><br>I have no idea=
what this has to do with the standard, as neither RAII=20
nor "Resource Acquisition Is Initialization" appears in it. <br><=
/div></div>-- <br>=A0Nevin ":-)" Liber=A0 <mailto:<a href=3D"m=
ailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com" target=3D"_blank">nevin@eviloverlord.com</a>&=
gt;=A0 (847) 691-1404<br>
<p></p>
-- <br>
=A0<br>
=A0<br>
=A0<br>
</div></body></html>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
--047d7bb043acc1729404ce32ba98--
.
Author: =?UTF-8?Q?V=C3=A1clav_Zeman?= <vhaisman@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:09:33 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_125_20053265.1353006573461
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky napsal(a=
):
>
> [...]
> If so how would you feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as a
> CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor
> Releases, and on top of that is actually within the definition of this
> word (with slight changes to some of the wording):
>
Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting using SBRM=
=20
instead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Management.
--=20
VZ
--=20
------=_Part_125_20053265.1353006573461
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky napsal(a=
):<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;b=
order-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">[...]<br> If so how would yo=
u feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as a<br> CADRe which simply =
unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor<br> Releases, and on top of tha=
t is actually within the definition of this<br> word (with slight changes t=
o some of the wording):<br></blockquote><div>Many people in the ##C++@FreeN=
ode channel have been suggesting using SBRM instead of RAII. SBRM stands fo=
r Scope Bound Resource Management.<br><br>-- <br>VZ<br><br></div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
------=_Part_125_20053265.1353006573461--
.
Author: "J. Daniel Garcia" <josedaniel.garcia@uc3m.es>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:02:57 -0600
Raw View
--f46d0401f95b080bcc04ce932d72
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As Nevin pointed out RAII is not a term defined by the standard.
And by the way.
This is a joke. Isn't it? Now that I got used to the acronym, do you really
want to change it?
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=E1clav Zeman <vhaisman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky napsal=
(a):
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> If so how would you feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as a
>> CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor
>> Releases, and on top of that is actually within the definition of this
>> word (with slight changes to some of the wording):
>>
> Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting using SBRM
> instead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Management.
>
> --
> VZ
>
> --
>
>
>
>
--=20
Prof. J. Daniel Garcia
Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Universidad
Computer Architecture Group
University Carlos III of Madrid
Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22
28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain
Tel: +34 918561316
Fax: +34 91 856 1270
e-mail: josedaniel.garcia@uc3m.es
Web: http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel
Linked-In: http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m
--=20
--f46d0401f95b080bcc04ce932d72
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As Nevin pointed out RAII is not a term defined by the standard.<div><br></=
div><div>And by the way.=A0</div><div><br></div><div>This is a joke. Isn=
9;t it? Now that I got used to the acronym, do you really want to change it=
?</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 1=
5, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=E1clav Zeman <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:=
vhaisman@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">vhaisman@gmail.com</a>></span> wro=
te:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky napsal(a=
):<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">[...]<div class=3D"im"><br> If so=
how would you feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as a<br>
CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor<br> Release=
s, and on top of that is actually within the definition of this<br> word (w=
ith slight changes to some of the wording):<br></div></blockquote><div>
Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting using SBRM i=
nstead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Management.<span class=
=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br><br>-- <br>VZ<br><br></font></span>=
</div>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888">
<p></p>
-- <br>
=A0<br>
=A0<br>
=A0<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <b=
r>Prof. J. Daniel Garcia<br>Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Unive=
rsidad<br>Computer Architecture Group<br>University Carlos III of Madrid<br=
>
Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22<br>28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain<br>Tel=
: +34 918561316<br>Fax: +34 91 856 1270<br>e-mail: <a href=3D"mailto:joseda=
niel.garcia@uc3m.es" target=3D"_blank">josedaniel.garcia@uc3m.es</a><br>Web=
: <a href=3D"http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel" target=3D"_blank">http:=
//www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel</a><br>
=A0<br>Linked-In: <a href=3D"http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia" targe=
t=3D"_blank">http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia</a><br>Twitter:=A0<a h=
ref=3D"http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m" target=3D"_blank">http://www.tw=
itter.com/jdgarciauc3m</a><br>
</div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
--f46d0401f95b080bcc04ce932d72--
.
Author: Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:56:45 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_148_21066166.1353049005838
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Jose
Please note that there are people who are just about to start learning C++=
=20
and it's for their benefits we should make the language easier. Those who=
=20
know C++ already don't need to even think before using this technique. They=
=20
know it and they use it. I get it. It is for people who don't know C++ and=
=20
then you try to explain them RAII. It took me a while before I understood=
=20
the meaning of "unfolded" so to speak mnemonic. Resource aquisition is=20
initialization? What does it mean?!! Is this english?=20
So no, it's not a joke. Why?
a) actually means something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a group=
=20
of [functions] having some unifying relationship"
b) actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning that *C*onstructor *A*=
cquires,=20
*D*estructor *R**e*leases
c) it is actual word
I think that instead of concentrating on what we know already, we should=20
concentrate of future and future of C++ - make it as easy to learn and use=
=20
as possible. RAII is a silly, meaningless acronym, CADRe is not.
Now that I got used to the acronym, do you really want to change it?
Similarly to changing habits of not using raw pointers and using "smart"=20
pointers instead.
=20
On Friday, 16 November 2012 02:03:40 UTC, josedaniel.garcia wrote:
>
> As Nevin pointed out RAII is not a term defined by the standard.
>
> And by the way.=20
>
> This is a joke. Isn't it? Now that I got used to the acronym, do you=20
> really want to change it?
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=E1clav Zeman <vhai...@gmail.com<javasc=
ript:>
> > wrote:
>
>> Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky napsa=
l(a):
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> If so how would you feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as a
>>> CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor
>>> Releases, and on top of that is actually within the definition of this
>>> word (with slight changes to some of the wording):
>>>
>> Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting using SBR=
M=20
>> instead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Management.
>>
>> --=20
>> VZ
>>
>> --=20
>> =20
>> =20
>> =20
>>
>
>
>
> --=20
> Prof. J. Daniel Garcia
> Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Universidad
> Computer Architecture Group
> University Carlos III of Madrid
> Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22
> 28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain
> Tel: +34 918561316
> Fax: +34 91 856 1270
> e-mail: josedani...@uc3m.es <javascript:>
> Web: http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel
> =20
> Linked-In: http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m
> =20
--=20
------=_Part_148_21066166.1353049005838
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div>Jose<br></div><div><br></div><div>Please note that there are people wh=
o are just about to start learning C++ and it's for their benefits we shoul=
d make the language easier. Those who know C++ already don't need to even t=
hink before using this technique. They know it and they use it. I get it. I=
t is for people who don't know C++ and then you try to explain them RAII. I=
t took me a while before I understood the meaning of "unfolded" so to speak=
mnemonic. Resource aquisition is initialization? What does it mean?!! Is t=
his english? </div><div>So no, it's not a joke. Why?</div><div>a) actu=
ally means something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a group of [fu=
nctions] having some unifying relationship"</div><div>b) actually does what=
it says - cooperates, meaning that <strong>C</strong>onstructor <str=
ong>A</strong>cquires, <strong>D</strong>estructor <strong>R</strong><stron=
g>e</strong>leases</div><div>c) it is actual word</div><div><br></div><div>=
I think that instead of concentrating on what we know already, we should co=
ncentrate of future and future of C++ - make it as easy to learn and use as=
possible. RAII is a silly, meaningless acronym, CADRe is not.</div><div><b=
r></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0=
..8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">Now that I got used to=
the acronym, do you really want to change it?</blockquote><div><br></div><=
div>Similarly to changing habits of not using raw pointers and using "smart=
" pointers instead.</div><div><br></div><div> </div>On Friday, 16 Nove=
mber 2012 02:03:40 UTC, josedaniel.garcia wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;p=
adding-left: 1ex;">As Nevin pointed out RAII is not a term defined by the s=
tandard.<div><br></div><div>And by the way. </div><div><br></div><div>=
This is a joke. Isn't it? Now that I got used to the acronym, do you really=
want to change it?</div>
<div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=
=E1clav Zeman <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"javascript:" target=3D"_blan=
k" gdf-obfuscated-mailto=3D"bvTMkTVH2hYJ">vhai...@gmail.com</a>></span> =
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky napsal(a=
):<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">[...]<div><br> If so how would yo=
u feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as a<br>
CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor<br> Release=
s, and on top of that is actually within the definition of this<br> word (w=
ith slight changes to some of the wording):<br></div></blockquote><div>
Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting using SBRM i=
nstead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Management.<span><font=
color=3D"#888888"><br><br>-- <br>VZ<br><br></font></span></div>
<span><font color=3D"#888888">
-- <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <b=
r>Prof. J. Daniel Garcia<br>Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Unive=
rsidad<br>Computer Architecture Group<br>University Carlos III of Madrid<br=
>
Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22<br>28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain<br>Tel=
: +34 918561316<br>Fax: +34 91 856 1270<br>e-mail: <a href=3D"javascript:" =
target=3D"_blank" gdf-obfuscated-mailto=3D"bvTMkTVH2hYJ">josedani...@uc3m.e=
s</a><br>Web: <a href=3D"http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel" target=3D"_=
blank">http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel</a><br>
<br>Linked-In: <a href=3D"http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia</a><br>Twitter:&nbs=
p;<a href=3D"http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m" target=3D"_blank">http://=
www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
------=_Part_148_21066166.1353049005838--
.
Author: Nicol Bolas <jmckesson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:17:32 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_1624_9857569.1353086252611
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:56:46 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:
>
> Jose
>
> Please note that there are people who are just about to start learning C+=
+=20
> and it's for their benefits we should make the language easier. Those who=
=20
> know C++ already don't need to even think before using this technique. Th=
ey=20
> know it and they use it. I get it. It is for people who don't know C++ an=
d=20
> then you try to explain them RAII. It took me a while before I understood=
=20
> the meaning of "unfolded" so to speak mnemonic. Resource aquisition is=20
> initialization? What does it mean?!! Is this english?=20
>
How is that *not *English? All of those are well-defined English words,=20
fitting into a proper English sentence according to English rules of=20
grammar (subject-verb-object).
=20
> So no, it's not a joke. Why?
> a) actually means something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a=20
> group of [functions] having some unifying relationship"
>
Not according to Dictionary.com<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cadr=
e>.=20
Or Wiktionary <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cadre>. The primary definition=
=20
of cadre is about military matters.
=20
> b) actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning that *C*onstructor *=
A
> *cquires, *D*estructor *R**e*leases
>
Acquires and releases *what?* At least RAII talks about *resources*.
=20
> c) it is actual word
>
> I think that instead of concentrating on what we know already, we should=
=20
> concentrate of future and future of C++ - make it as easy to learn and us=
e=20
> as possible. RAII is a silly, meaningless acronym, CADRe is not.
>
The thing you keep missing in this discussion is where you are. This is a=
=20
discussion group for the Standard for Programming Language C++. This=20
standard does not teach RAII. It does not tell the reader how to use RAII.=
=20
It *never mentions* RAII.
You're suggesting that a document (the standard) be modified to change=20
terminology *it never uses.
*If you want to bikeshed CARDe vs. RAII vs. something else, fine. Just=20
don't do it *here*; we discuss extensions to the *standard* here. And the=
=20
standard does not talk about any of this. This is not the place for this=20
discussion.
=20
>
> Now that I got used to the acronym, do you really want to change it?
>
>
> Similarly to changing habits of not using raw pointers and using "smart"=
=20
> pointers instead.
>
> =20
> On Friday, 16 November 2012 02:03:40 UTC, josedaniel.garcia wrote:
>>
>> As Nevin pointed out RAII is not a term defined by the standard.
>>
>> And by the way.=20
>>
>> This is a joke. Isn't it? Now that I got used to the acronym, do you=20
>> really want to change it?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=E1clav Zeman <vhai...@gmail.com> wrot=
e:
>>
>>> Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky naps=
al(a):
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> If so how would you feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as a
>>>> CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor
>>>> Releases, and on top of that is actually within the definition of this
>>>> word (with slight changes to some of the wording):
>>>>
>>> Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting using=20
>>> SBRM instead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Management.
>>>
>>> --=20
>>> VZ
>>>
>>> --=20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --=20
>> Prof. J. Daniel Garcia
>> Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Universidad
>> Computer Architecture Group
>> University Carlos III of Madrid
>> Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22
>> 28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain
>> Tel: +34 918561316
>> Fax: +34 91 856 1270
>> e-mail: josedani...@uc3m.es
>> Web: http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel
>> =20
>> Linked-In: http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia
>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m
>> =20
>
--=20
------=_Part_1624_9857569.1353086252611
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<br><br>On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:56:46 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsk=
y wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0=
..8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div>Jose<br></div><di=
v><br></div><div>Please note that there are people who are just about to st=
art learning C++ and it's for their benefits we should make the language ea=
sier. Those who know C++ already don't need to even think before using this=
technique. They know it and they use it. I get it. It is for people who do=
n't know C++ and then you try to explain them RAII. It took me a while befo=
re I understood the meaning of "unfolded" so to speak mnemonic. Resource aq=
uisition is initialization? What does it mean?!! Is this english? </di=
v></blockquote><div><br>How is that <i>not </i>English? All of those are we=
ll-defined English words, fitting into a proper English sentence according =
to English rules of grammar (subject-verb-object).<br> </div><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left:=
1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div>So no, it's not a joke. Why?</div>=
<div>a) actually means something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a =
group of [functions] having some unifying relationship"</div></blockquote><=
div><br>Not according to <a href=3D"http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/=
cadre">Dictionary.com</a>. Or <a href=3D"http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cadr=
e">Wiktionary</a>. The primary definition of cadre is about military matter=
s.<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;marg=
in-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div>b) actu=
ally does what it says - cooperates, meaning that <b>C</b>onstructor =
<b>A</b>cquires, <b>D</b>estructor <b>R</b><b>e</b>leases</div></blockquote=
><div><br>Acquires and releases <i>what?</i> At least RAII talks about <i>r=
esources</i>.<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><=
div>c) it is actual word</div><div><br></div><div>I think that instead of c=
oncentrating on what we know already, we should concentrate of future and f=
uture of C++ - make it as easy to learn and use as possible. RAII is a sill=
y, meaningless acronym, CADRe is not.</div></blockquote><div><br>The thing =
you keep missing in this discussion is where you are. This is a discussion =
group for the Standard for Programming Language C++. This standard does not=
teach RAII. It does not tell the reader how to use RAII. It <i>never menti=
ons</i> RAII.<br><br>You're suggesting that a document (the standard) be mo=
dified to change terminology <i>it never uses.<br><br></i>If you want to bi=
keshed CARDe vs. RAII vs. something else, fine. Just don't do it <i>here</i=
>; we discuss extensions to the <i>standard</i> here. And the standard does=
not talk about any of this. This is not the place for this discussion.<br>=
</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-lef=
t: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div><br></div><bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-l=
eft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Now that I got used to the acronym, do=
you really want to change it?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Similarly to=
changing habits of not using raw pointers and using "smart" pointers inste=
ad.</div><div><br></div><div> </div>On Friday, 16 November 2012 02:03:=
40 UTC, josedaniel.garcia wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">As=
Nevin pointed out RAII is not a term defined by the standard.<div><br></di=
v><div>And by the way. </div><div><br></div><div>This is a joke. Isn't=
it? Now that I got used to the acronym, do you really want to change it?</=
div>
<div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=
=E1clav Zeman <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a>vhai...@gmail.com</a>></span> wro=
te:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky napsal(a=
):<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">[...]<div><br> If so how would yo=
u feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as a<br>
CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor<br> Release=
s, and on top of that is actually within the definition of this<br> word (w=
ith slight changes to some of the wording):<br></div></blockquote><div>
Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting using SBRM i=
nstead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Management.<span><font=
color=3D"#888888"><br><br>-- <br>VZ<br><br></font></span></div>
<span><font color=3D"#888888">
-- <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <b=
r>Prof. J. Daniel Garcia<br>Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Unive=
rsidad<br>Computer Architecture Group<br>University Carlos III of Madrid<br=
>
Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22<br>28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain<br>Tel=
: +34 918561316<br>Fax: +34 91 856 1270<br>e-mail: <a>josedani...@uc3m.es</=
a><br>Web: <a href=3D"http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel" target=3D"_bla=
nk">http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~<wbr>jdaniel</a><br>
<br>Linked-In: <a href=3D"http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">http://es.linkedin.com/in/<wbr>jdanielgarcia</a><br>Twitter=
: <a href=3D"http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m" target=3D"_blank">ht=
tp://www.twitter.<wbr>com/jdgarciauc3m</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
------=_Part_1624_9857569.1353086252611--
.
Author: "J. Daniel Garcia" <josedaniel.garcia@uc3m.es>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:20:57 -0600
Raw View
--047d7b339d4d17fbf104cea00047
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+1
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Nicol Bolas <jmckesson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:56:46 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrot=
e:
>>
>> Jose
>>
>> Please note that there are people who are just about to start learning
>> C++ and it's for their benefits we should make the language easier. Thos=
e
>> who know C++ already don't need to even think before using this techniqu=
e.
>> They know it and they use it. I get it. It is for people who don't know =
C++
>> and then you try to explain them RAII. It took me a while before I
>> understood the meaning of "unfolded" so to speak mnemonic. Resource
>> aquisition is initialization? What does it mean?!! Is this english?
>>
>
> How is that *not *English? All of those are well-defined English words,
> fitting into a proper English sentence according to English rules of
> grammar (subject-verb-object).
>
>
>> So no, it's not a joke. Why?
>> a) actually means something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a
>> group of [functions] having some unifying relationship"
>>
>
> Not according to Dictionary.com<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ca=
dre>.
> Or Wiktionary <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cadre>. The primary
> definition of cadre is about military matters.
>
>
>> b) actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning that *C*onstructor =
*
>> A*cquires, *D*estructor *R**e*leases
>>
>
> Acquires and releases *what?* At least RAII talks about *resources*.
>
>
>> c) it is actual word
>>
>> I think that instead of concentrating on what we know already, we should
>> concentrate of future and future of C++ - make it as easy to learn and u=
se
>> as possible. RAII is a silly, meaningless acronym, CADRe is not.
>>
>
> The thing you keep missing in this discussion is where you are. This is a
> discussion group for the Standard for Programming Language C++. This
> standard does not teach RAII. It does not tell the reader how to use RAII=
..
> It *never mentions* RAII.
>
> You're suggesting that a document (the standard) be modified to change
> terminology *it never uses.
>
> *If you want to bikeshed CARDe vs. RAII vs. something else, fine. Just
> don't do it *here*; we discuss extensions to the *standard* here. And the
> standard does not talk about any of this. This is not the place for this
> discussion.
>
>
>>
>> Now that I got used to the acronym, do you really want to change it?
>>
>>
>> Similarly to changing habits of not using raw pointers and using "smart"
>> pointers instead.
>>
>>
>> On Friday, 16 November 2012 02:03:40 UTC, josedaniel.garcia wrote:
>>>
>>> As Nevin pointed out RAII is not a term defined by the standard.
>>>
>>> And by the way.
>>>
>>> This is a joke. Isn't it? Now that I got used to the acronym, do you
>>> really want to change it?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=E1clav Zeman <vhai...@gmail.com> wro=
te:
>>>
>>>> Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky
>>>> napsal(a):
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> If so how would you feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as a
>>>>> CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor
>>>>> Releases, and on top of that is actually within the definition of thi=
s
>>>>> word (with slight changes to some of the wording):
>>>>>
>>>> Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting using
>>>> SBRM instead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Management.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> VZ
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Prof. J. Daniel Garcia
>>> Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Universidad
>>> Computer Architecture Group
>>> University Carlos III of Madrid
>>> Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22
>>> 28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain
>>> Tel: +34 918561316
>>> Fax: +34 91 856 1270
>>> e-mail: josedani...@uc3m.es
>>> Web: http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~**jdaniel<http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.=
es/~jdaniel>
>>>
>>> Linked-In: http://es.linkedin.com/in/**jdanielgarcia<http://es.linkedin=
..com/in/jdanielgarcia>
>>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.**com/jdgarciauc3m<http://www.twitter.com/j=
dgarciauc3m>
>>>
>> --
>
>
>
>
--=20
Prof. J. Daniel Garcia
Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Universidad
Computer Architecture Group
University Carlos III of Madrid
Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22
28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain
Tel: +34 918561316
Fax: +34 91 856 1270
e-mail: josedaniel.garcia@uc3m.es
Web: http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel
Linked-In: http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m
--=20
--047d7b339d4d17fbf104cea00047
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+1<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov=
16, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Nicol Bolas <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:=
jmckesson@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">jmckesson@gmail.com</a>></span> w=
rote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"im"><br><br>On Thursday, Novem=
ber 15, 2012 10:56:46 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:<blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc s=
olid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>Jose<br></div><div><br></div><div>Please note that there are people wh=
o are just about to start learning C++ and it's for their benefits we s=
hould make the language easier. Those who know C++ already don't need t=
o even think before using this technique. They know it and they use it. I g=
et it. It is for people who don't know C++ and then you try to explain =
them RAII. It took me a while before I understood the meaning of "unfo=
lded" so to speak mnemonic. Resource aquisition is initialization? Wha=
t does it mean?!! Is this english?=A0</div>
</blockquote></div><div><br>How is that <i>not </i>English? All of those ar=
e well-defined English words, fitting into a proper English sentence accord=
ing to English rules of grammar (subject-verb-object).<br>=A0</div><div cla=
ss=3D"im">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;borde=
r-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>So no, it's not a joke. Wh=
y?</div><div>a) actually means something "a nucleus or core group ...;=
broadly : a group of [functions] having some unifying relationship"</=
div>
</blockquote></div><div><br>Not according to <a href=3D"http://dictionary.r=
eference.com/browse/cadre" target=3D"_blank">Dictionary.com</a>. Or <a href=
=3D"http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cadre" target=3D"_blank">Wiktionary</a>. =
The primary definition of cadre is about military matters.<br>
=A0</div><div class=3D"im"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>b) =
actually does what it says =A0- cooperates, meaning that <b>C</b>onstructor=
<b>A</b>cquires, <b>D</b>estructor <b>R</b><b>e</b>leases</div>
</blockquote></div><div><br>Acquires and releases <i>what?</i> At least RAI=
I talks about <i>resources</i>.<br>=A0</div><div class=3D"im"><blockquote c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>c) it is actual word</div><div><br></div><div>I think that instead of =
concentrating on what we know already, we should concentrate of future and =
future of C++ - make it as easy to learn and use as possible. RAII is a sil=
ly, meaningless acronym, CADRe is not.</div>
</blockquote></div><div><br>The thing you keep missing in this discussion i=
s where you are. This is a discussion group for the Standard for Programmin=
g Language C++. This standard does not teach RAII. It does not tell the rea=
der how to use RAII. It <i>never mentions</i> RAII.<br>
<br>You're suggesting that a document (the standard) be modified to cha=
nge terminology <i>it never uses.<br><br></i>If you want to bikeshed CARDe =
vs. RAII vs. something else, fine. Just don't do it <i>here</i>; we dis=
cuss extensions to the <i>standard</i> here. And the standard does not talk=
about any of this. This is not the place for this discussion.<br>
=A0</div><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Now that I got used to the acronym, do you really want to change it?</block=
quote><div><br></div><div>Similarly to changing habits of not using raw poi=
nters and using "smart" pointers instead.</div><div><br></div>
<div>=A0</div>On Friday, 16 November 2012 02:03:40 UTC, josedaniel.garcia =
wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">As Nevin pointed out RAII is =
not a term defined by the standard.<div>
<br></div><div>And by the way.=A0</div><div><br></div><div>This is a joke. =
Isn't it? Now that I got used to the acronym, do you really want to cha=
nge it?</div>
<div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=
=E1clav Zeman <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a>vhai...@gmail.com</a>></span> wro=
te:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky napsal(a=
):<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">[...]<div><br> If so how would yo=
u feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as a<br>
CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor<br> Release=
s, and on top of that is actually within the definition of this<br> word (w=
ith slight changes to some of the wording):<br></div></blockquote><div>
Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting using SBRM i=
nstead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Management.<span><font=
color=3D"#888888"><br><br>-- <br>VZ<br><br></font></span></div>
<span><font color=3D"#888888">
-- <br>
=A0<br>
=A0<br>
=A0<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <b=
r>Prof. J. Daniel Garcia<br>Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Unive=
rsidad<br>Computer Architecture Group<br>University Carlos III of Madrid<br=
>
Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22<br>28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain<br>Tel=
: <a href=3D"tel:%2B34%20918561316" value=3D"+34918561316" target=3D"_blank=
">+34 918561316</a><br>Fax: <a href=3D"tel:%2B34%2091%20856%201270" value=
=3D"+34918561270" target=3D"_blank">+34 91 856 1270</a><br>
e-mail: <a>josedani...@uc3m.es</a><br>Web: <a href=3D"http://www.arcos.inf.=
uc3m.es/~jdaniel" target=3D"_blank">http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~<u></u>jd=
aniel</a><br>
=A0<br>Linked-In: <a href=3D"http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia" targe=
t=3D"_blank">http://es.linkedin.com/in/<u></u>jdanielgarcia</a><br>Twitter:=
=A0<a href=3D"http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m" target=3D"_blank">http:/=
/www.twitter.<u></u>com/jdgarciauc3m</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<p></p>
-- <br>
=A0<br>
=A0<br>
=A0<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br>=
Prof. J. Daniel Garcia<br>Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Univers=
idad<br>Computer Architecture Group<br>University Carlos III of Madrid<br>
Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22<br>28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain<br>Tel=
: +34 918561316<br>Fax: +34 91 856 1270<br>e-mail: <a href=3D"mailto:joseda=
niel.garcia@uc3m.es" target=3D"_blank">josedaniel.garcia@uc3m.es</a><br>Web=
: <a href=3D"http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel" target=3D"_blank">http:=
//www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel</a><br>
=A0<br>Linked-In: <a href=3D"http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia" targe=
t=3D"_blank">http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia</a><br>Twitter:=A0<a h=
ref=3D"http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m" target=3D"_blank">http://www.tw=
itter.com/jdgarciauc3m</a><br>
</div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
--047d7b339d4d17fbf104cea00047--
.
Author: Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 04:05:04 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_323_7830165.1353153904249
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> How is that not English?=20
RAII? what word is that? is this english? CADRE is.=20
On Friday, 16 November 2012 17:17:32 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:56:46 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrot=
e:
>>
>> Jose
>>
>> Please note that there are people who are just about to start learning=
=20
>> C++ and it's for their benefits we should make the language easier. Thos=
e=20
>> who know C++ already don't need to even think before using this techniqu=
e.=20
>> They know it and they use it. I get it. It is for people who don't know =
C++=20
>> and then you try to explain them RAII. It took me a while before I=20
>> understood the meaning of "unfolded" so to speak mnemonic. Resource=20
>> aquisition is initialization? What does it mean?!! Is this english?=20
>>
>
> How is that *not *English? All of those are well-defined English words,=
=20
> fitting into a proper English sentence according to English rules of=20
> grammar (subject-verb-object).
> =20
>
>> So no, it's not a joke. Why?
>> a) actually means something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a=20
>> group of [functions] having some unifying relationship"
>>
>
> Not according to Dictionary.com<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ca=
dre>.=20
> Or Wiktionary <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cadre>. The primary=20
> definition of cadre is about military matters.
> =20
>
>> b) actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning that *C*onstructor =
*
>> A*cquires, *D*estructor *R**e*leases
>>
>
> Acquires and releases *what?* At least RAII talks about *resources*.
> =20
>
>> c) it is actual word
>>
>> I think that instead of concentrating on what we know already, we should=
=20
>> concentrate of future and future of C++ - make it as easy to learn and u=
se=20
>> as possible. RAII is a silly, meaningless acronym, CADRe is not.
>>
>
> The thing you keep missing in this discussion is where you are. This is a=
=20
> discussion group for the Standard for Programming Language C++. This=20
> standard does not teach RAII. It does not tell the reader how to use RAII=
..=20
> It *never mentions* RAII.
>
> You're suggesting that a document (the standard) be modified to change=20
> terminology *it never uses.
>
> *If you want to bikeshed CARDe vs. RAII vs. something else, fine. Just=20
> don't do it *here*; we discuss extensions to the *standard* here. And the=
=20
> standard does not talk about any of this. This is not the place for this=
=20
> discussion.
> =20
>
>>
>> Now that I got used to the acronym, do you really want to change it?
>>
>>
>> Similarly to changing habits of not using raw pointers and using "smart"=
=20
>> pointers instead.
>>
>> =20
>> On Friday, 16 November 2012 02:03:40 UTC, josedaniel.garcia wrote:
>>>
>>> As Nevin pointed out RAII is not a term defined by the standard.
>>>
>>> And by the way.=20
>>>
>>> This is a joke. Isn't it? Now that I got used to the acronym, do you=20
>>> really want to change it?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=E1clav Zeman <vhai...@gmail.com> wro=
te:
>>>
>>>> Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky=20
>>>> napsal(a):
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> If so how would you feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as a
>>>>> CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor
>>>>> Releases, and on top of that is actually within the definition of thi=
s
>>>>> word (with slight changes to some of the wording):
>>>>>
>>>> Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting using=
=20
>>>> SBRM instead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Management.
>>>>
>>>> --=20
>>>> VZ
>>>>
>>>> --=20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --=20
>>> Prof. J. Daniel Garcia
>>> Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Universidad
>>> Computer Architecture Group
>>> University Carlos III of Madrid
>>> Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22
>>> 28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain
>>> Tel: +34 918561316
>>> Fax: +34 91 856 1270
>>> e-mail: josedani...@uc3m.es
>>> Web: http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel
>>> =20
>>> Linked-In: http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia
>>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m
>>> =20
>>
--=20
------=_Part_323_7830165.1353153904249
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;bor=
der-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">How is that not English? =
</blockquote><div>RAII? what word is that? is this english? CADRE is. =
</div><br>On Friday, 16 November 2012 17:17:32 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:<blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-=
left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><br><br>On Thursday, November 15, =
2012 10:56:46 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><div>Jose<br></div><div><br></div><div>Please note that there=
are people who are just about to start learning C++ and it's for their ben=
efits we should make the language easier. Those who know C++ already don't =
need to even think before using this technique. They know it and they use i=
t. I get it. It is for people who don't know C++ and then you try to explai=
n them RAII. It took me a while before I understood the meaning of "unfolde=
d" so to speak mnemonic. Resource aquisition is initialization? What does i=
t mean?!! Is this english? </div></blockquote><div><br>How is that <i>=
not </i>English? All of those are well-defined English words, fitting into =
a proper English sentence according to English rules of grammar (subject-ve=
rb-object).<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>So =
no, it's not a joke. Why?</div><div>a) actually means something "a nucleus =
or core group ...; broadly : a group of [functions] having some unifying re=
lationship"</div></blockquote><div><br>Not according to <a href=3D"http://d=
ictionary.reference.com/browse/cadre" target=3D"_blank">Dictionary.com</a>.=
Or <a href=3D"http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cadre" target=3D"_blank">Wikti=
onary</a>. The primary definition of cadre is about military matters.<br>&n=
bsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0=
..8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>b) actually does wha=
t it says - cooperates, meaning that <b>C</b>onstructor <b>A</b>cquir=
es, <b>D</b>estructor <b>R</b><b>e</b>leases</div></blockquote><div><br>Acq=
uires and releases <i>what?</i> At least RAII talks about <i>resources</i>.=
<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-=
left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>c) it is actua=
l word</div><div><br></div><div>I think that instead of concentrating on wh=
at we know already, we should concentrate of future and future of C++ - mak=
e it as easy to learn and use as possible. RAII is a silly, meaningless acr=
onym, CADRe is not.</div></blockquote><div><br>The thing you keep missing i=
n this discussion is where you are. This is a discussion group for the Stan=
dard for Programming Language C++. This standard does not teach RAII. It do=
es not tell the reader how to use RAII. It <i>never mentions</i> RAII.<br><=
br>You're suggesting that a document (the standard) be modified to change t=
erminology <i>it never uses.<br><br></i>If you want to bikeshed CARDe vs. R=
AII vs. something else, fine. Just don't do it <i>here</i>; we discuss exte=
nsions to the <i>standard</i> here. And the standard does not talk about an=
y of this. This is not the place for this discussion.<br> </div><block=
quote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left=
:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex">Now that I got used to the acronym, do you really want to cha=
nge it?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Similarly to changing habits of not=
using raw pointers and using "smart" pointers instead.</div><div><br></div=
><div> </div>On Friday, 16 November 2012 02:03:40 UTC, josedaniel.garc=
ia wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0=
..8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">As Nevin pointed out RAII=
is not a term defined by the standard.<div><br></div><div>And by the way.&=
nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>This is a joke. Isn't it? Now that I got use=
d to the acronym, do you really want to change it?</div>
<div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=
=E1clav Zeman <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a>vhai...@gmail.com</a>></span> wro=
te:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky napsal(a=
):<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">[...]<div><br> If so how would yo=
u feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as a<br>
CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor<br> Release=
s, and on top of that is actually within the definition of this<br> word (w=
ith slight changes to some of the wording):<br></div></blockquote><div>
Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting using SBRM i=
nstead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Management.<span><font=
color=3D"#888888"><br><br>-- <br>VZ<br><br></font></span></div>
<span><font color=3D"#888888">
-- <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <b=
r>Prof. J. Daniel Garcia<br>Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Unive=
rsidad<br>Computer Architecture Group<br>University Carlos III of Madrid<br=
>
Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22<br>28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain<br>Tel=
: +34 918561316<br>Fax: +34 91 856 1270<br>e-mail: <a>josedani...@uc3m.es</=
a><br>Web: <a href=3D"http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel" target=3D"_bla=
nk">http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel</a><br>
<br>Linked-In: <a href=3D"http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia</a><br>Twitter:&nbs=
p;<a href=3D"http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m" target=3D"_blank">http://=
www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
------=_Part_323_7830165.1353153904249--
.
Author: Nicol Bolas <jmckesson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 08:33:13 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_67_6228092.1353169993939
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:05:04 AM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:
>
> How is that not English?=20
>
> RAII? what word is that? is this english? CADRE is.=20
>
Your "is that English" remark was clearly directed at "Resource acquisition=
=20
is initialization." Let's not pretend like you were talking about the=20
acronym here.
In any case, there are plenty of acronyms that aren't English words. RSA,=
=20
JSON, XML, HTML, etc. That hasn't stopped people from using them.
I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd *never* heard of "CADRe"=
=20
before. There are C++ books that already exist, promoting the use of RAII=
=20
and have done so for near on a decade now.
Why should they be rewritten just to call it something else? This is the=20
ultimate bikeshed issue: it will have a negligible effect on anything, it=
=20
will only create vast confusion between people who use the established name=
=20
and people who don't.
RAII won; it got there first and it's in wide-spread use. *Let it go alread=
y
*. You don't rename a term in wide usage just because you feel it might be=
=20
a bit better at describing what that functionality does.
> On Friday, 16 November 2012 17:17:32 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:56:46 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky=20
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jose
>>>
>>> Please note that there are people who are just about to start learning=
=20
>>> C++ and it's for their benefits we should make the language easier. Tho=
se=20
>>> who know C++ already don't need to even think before using this techniq=
ue.=20
>>> They know it and they use it. I get it. It is for people who don't know=
C++=20
>>> and then you try to explain them RAII. It took me a while before I=20
>>> understood the meaning of "unfolded" so to speak mnemonic. Resource=20
>>> aquisition is initialization? What does it mean?!! Is this english?=20
>>>
>>
>> How is that *not *English? All of those are well-defined English words,=
=20
>> fitting into a proper English sentence according to English rules of=20
>> grammar (subject-verb-object).
>> =20
>>
>>> So no, it's not a joke. Why?
>>> a) actually means something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a=
=20
>>> group of [functions] having some unifying relationship"
>>>
>>
>> Not according to Dictionary.com<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/c=
adre>.=20
>> Or Wiktionary <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cadre>. The primary=20
>> definition of cadre is about military matters.
>> =20
>>
>>> b) actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning that *C*onstructor=
=20
>>> *A*cquires, *D*estructor *R**e*leases
>>>
>>
>> Acquires and releases *what?* At least RAII talks about *resources*.
>> =20
>>
>>> c) it is actual word
>>>
>>> I think that instead of concentrating on what we know already, we shoul=
d=20
>>> concentrate of future and future of C++ - make it as easy to learn and =
use=20
>>> as possible. RAII is a silly, meaningless acronym, CADRe is not.
>>>
>>
>> The thing you keep missing in this discussion is where you are. This is =
a=20
>> discussion group for the Standard for Programming Language C++. This=20
>> standard does not teach RAII. It does not tell the reader how to use RAI=
I.=20
>> It *never mentions* RAII.
>>
>> You're suggesting that a document (the standard) be modified to change=
=20
>> terminology *it never uses.
>>
>> *If you want to bikeshed CARDe vs. RAII vs. something else, fine. Just=
=20
>> don't do it *here*; we discuss extensions to the *standard* here. And=20
>> the standard does not talk about any of this. This is not the place for=
=20
>> this discussion.
>> =20
>>
>>>
>>> Now that I got used to the acronym, do you really want to change it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Similarly to changing habits of not using raw pointers and using "smart=
"=20
>>> pointers instead.
>>>
>>> =20
>>> On Friday, 16 November 2012 02:03:40 UTC, josedaniel.garcia wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As Nevin pointed out RAII is not a term defined by the standard.
>>>>
>>>> And by the way.=20
>>>>
>>>> This is a joke. Isn't it? Now that I got used to the acronym, do you=
=20
>>>> really want to change it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=E1clav Zeman <vhai...@gmail.com>wro=
te:
>>>>
>>>>> Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky=20
>>>>> napsal(a):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If so how would you feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as =
a
>>>>>> CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor
>>>>>> Releases, and on top of that is actually within the definition of th=
is
>>>>>> word (with slight changes to some of the wording):
>>>>>>
>>>>> Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting using=
=20
>>>>> SBRM instead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Management=
..
>>>>>
>>>>> --=20
>>>>> VZ
>>>>>
>>>>> --=20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --=20
>>>> Prof. J. Daniel Garcia
>>>> Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Universidad
>>>> Computer Architecture Group
>>>> University Carlos III of Madrid
>>>> Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22
>>>> 28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain
>>>> Tel: +34 918561316
>>>> Fax: +34 91 856 1270
>>>> e-mail: josedani...@uc3m.es
>>>> Web: http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel
>>>> =20
>>>> Linked-In: http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia
>>>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m
>>>> =20
>>>
--=20
------=_Part_67_6228092.1353169993939
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<br><br>On Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:05:04 AM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky=
wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.=
8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class=3D"gm=
ail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;p=
adding-left:1ex">How is that not English? </blockquote><div>RAII? what=
word is that? is this english? CADRE is. </div></blockquote><div><br>=
Your "is that English" remark was clearly directed at "Resource acquisition=
is initialization." Let's not pretend like you were talking about the acro=
nym here.<br><br>In any case, there are plenty of acronyms that aren't Engl=
ish words. RSA, JSON, XML, HTML, etc. That hasn't stopped people from using=
them.<br><br>I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd <i>never</i>=
heard of "CADRe" before. There are C++ books that already exist, promoting=
the use of RAII and have done so for near on a decade now.<br><br>Why shou=
ld they be rewritten just to call it something else? This is the ultimate b=
ikeshed issue: it will have a negligible effect on anything, it will only c=
reate vast confusion between people who use the established name and people=
who don't.<br><br>RAII won; it got there first and it's in wide-spread use=
.. <i>Let it go already</i>. You don't rename a term in wide usage just beca=
use you feel it might be a bit better at describing what that functionality=
does.<br><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;ma=
rgin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><br>On Fri=
day, 16 November 2012 17:17:32 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:<blockquote class=3D=
"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc soli=
d;padding-left:1ex"><br><br>On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:56:46 PM UTC-=
8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Jo=
se<br></div><div><br></div><div>Please note that there are people who are j=
ust about to start learning C++ and it's for their benefits we should make =
the language easier. Those who know C++ already don't need to even think be=
fore using this technique. They know it and they use it. I get it. It is fo=
r people who don't know C++ and then you try to explain them RAII. It took =
me a while before I understood the meaning of "unfolded" so to speak mnemon=
ic. Resource aquisition is initialization? What does it mean?!! Is this eng=
lish? </div></blockquote><div><br>How is that <i>not </i>English? All =
of those are well-defined English words, fitting into a proper English sent=
ence according to English rules of grammar (subject-verb-object).<br> =
</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>So no, it's not a joke. =
Why?</div><div>a) actually means something "a nucleus or core group ...; br=
oadly : a group of [functions] having some unifying relationship"</div></bl=
ockquote><div><br>Not according to <a href=3D"http://dictionary.reference.c=
om/browse/cadre" target=3D"_blank">Dictionary.com</a>. Or <a href=3D"http:/=
/en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cadre" target=3D"_blank">Wiktionary</a>. The primar=
y definition of cadre is about military matters.<br> </div><blockquote=
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px =
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>b) actually does what it says - coo=
perates, meaning that <b>C</b>onstructor <b>A</b>cquires, <b>D</b>estructor=
<b>R</b><b>e</b>leases</div></blockquote><div><br>Acquires and releases <i=
>what?</i> At least RAII talks about <i>resources</i>.<br> </div><bloc=
kquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-lef=
t:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>c) it is actual word</div><div><br>=
</div><div>I think that instead of concentrating on what we know already, w=
e should concentrate of future and future of C++ - make it as easy to learn=
and use as possible. RAII is a silly, meaningless acronym, CADRe is not.</=
div></blockquote><div><br>The thing you keep missing in this discussion is =
where you are. This is a discussion group for the Standard for Programming =
Language C++. This standard does not teach RAII. It does not tell the reade=
r how to use RAII. It <i>never mentions</i> RAII.<br><br>You're suggesting =
that a document (the standard) be modified to change terminology <i>it neve=
r uses.<br><br></i>If you want to bikeshed CARDe vs. RAII vs. something els=
e, fine. Just don't do it <i>here</i>; we discuss extensions to the <i>stan=
dard</i> here. And the standard does not talk about any of this. This is no=
t the place for this discussion.<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;paddi=
ng-left:1ex"><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Now tha=
t I got used to the acronym, do you really want to change it?</blockquote><=
div><br></div><div>Similarly to changing habits of not using raw pointers a=
nd using "smart" pointers instead.</div><div><br></div><div> </div>On =
Friday, 16 November 2012 02:03:40 UTC, josedaniel.garcia wrote:<blockquote=
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px =
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">As Nevin pointed out RAII is not a term define=
d by the standard.<div><br></div><div>And by the way. </div><div><br><=
/div><div>This is a joke. Isn't it? Now that I got used to the acronym, do =
you really want to change it?</div>
<div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=
=E1clav Zeman <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a>vhai...@gmail.com</a>></span> wro=
te:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky napsal(a=
):<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">[...]<div><br> If so how would yo=
u feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as a<br>
CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor<br> Release=
s, and on top of that is actually within the definition of this<br> word (w=
ith slight changes to some of the wording):<br></div></blockquote><div>
Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting using SBRM i=
nstead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Management.<span><font=
color=3D"#888888"><br><br>-- <br>VZ<br><br></font></span></div>
<span><font color=3D"#888888">
-- <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <b=
r>Prof. J. Daniel Garcia<br>Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Unive=
rsidad<br>Computer Architecture Group<br>University Carlos III of Madrid<br=
>
Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22<br>28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain<br>Tel=
: +34 918561316<br>Fax: +34 91 856 1270<br>e-mail: <a>josedani...@uc3m.es</=
a><br>Web: <a href=3D"http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel" target=3D"_bla=
nk">http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~<wbr>jdaniel</a><br>
<br>Linked-In: <a href=3D"http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">http://es.linkedin.com/in/<wbr>jdanielgarcia</a><br>Twitter=
: <a href=3D"http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m" target=3D"_blank">ht=
tp://www.twitter.<wbr>com/jdgarciauc3m</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
------=_Part_67_6228092.1353169993939--
.
Author: Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 02:54:58 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_1730_29517928.1353236098384
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Your "is that English" remark was clearly directed at "Resource=20
> acquisition is initialization." Let's not pretend like you were talking=
=20
> about the acronym here.
>
At this stage it is purely academic, and so it follows, more or less=20
pointless and useless but would you mind not telling me what I had in mind?=
=20
Because when I was speaking about RAII as a non-English word while CADRE is=
=20
English.
I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd *never* heard of "CADRe"=
=20
> before
And your point is?
There are C++ books that already exist, promoting the use of RAII and=20
> have done so for near on a decade now.
Again, your point is?
RAII, omg, even when new people read it they have to really think about it.=
=20
It is so unnatural and meaningless. And what that it has been in use for=20
decade or more? Just like raw pointers are and now we have preferences for=
=20
smart pointers - does it cause confusion? Apparently only amongst people=20
for whom recursion is no harder than iteration.=20
CADRe reflects the whole technique much better than RAII, it simply does=20
what it says on the tin.
And just because you've never heard of something it doesn't mean that it is=
=20
a bad idea. What kind of logic is this?
Discussion with you Nicol is pointless. Why? Because you contradict=20
yourself from post to post. Example:
You stated in one of your post that recursion is no harder to iteration so=
=20
there is no need for having a mechanism which would allow iteration over=20
variadic templates. Yet, few post later, in another thread you are all=20
heated up for static for? Why? Why would you like to have static for when=
=20
you already can do what static for will do. You have recursion which=20
according to you is no harder to iteration, so why would you waste time of=
=20
everybody to have such a feature? Where is the consistency?
On Saturday, 17 November 2012 16:33:14 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:05:04 AM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote=
:
>>
>> How is that not English?=20
>>
>> RAII? what word is that? is this english? CADRE is.=20
>>
>
> Your "is that English" remark was clearly directed at "Resource=20
> acquisition is initialization." Let's not pretend like you were talking=
=20
> about the acronym here.
>
> In any case, there are plenty of acronyms that aren't English words. RSA,=
=20
> JSON, XML, HTML, etc. That hasn't stopped people from using them.
>
> I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd *never* heard of "CADRe"=
=20
> before. There are C++ books that already exist, promoting the use of RAII=
=20
> and have done so for near on a decade now.
>
> Why should they be rewritten just to call it something else? This is the=
=20
> ultimate bikeshed issue: it will have a negligible effect on anything, it=
=20
> will only create vast confusion between people who use the established na=
me=20
> and people who don't.
>
> RAII won; it got there first and it's in wide-spread use. *Let it go=20
> already*. You don't rename a term in wide usage just because you feel it=
=20
> might be a bit better at describing what that functionality does.
>
>
>> On Friday, 16 November 2012 17:17:32 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:56:46 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky=20
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jose
>>>>
>>>> Please note that there are people who are just about to start learning=
=20
>>>> C++ and it's for their benefits we should make the language easier. Th=
ose=20
>>>> who know C++ already don't need to even think before using this techni=
que.=20
>>>> They know it and they use it. I get it. It is for people who don't kno=
w C++=20
>>>> and then you try to explain them RAII. It took me a while before I=20
>>>> understood the meaning of "unfolded" so to speak mnemonic. Resource=20
>>>> aquisition is initialization? What does it mean?!! Is this english?=20
>>>>
>>>
>>> How is that *not *English? All of those are well-defined English words,=
=20
>>> fitting into a proper English sentence according to English rules of=20
>>> grammar (subject-verb-object).
>>> =20
>>>
>>>> So no, it's not a joke. Why?
>>>> a) actually means something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a=
=20
>>>> group of [functions] having some unifying relationship"
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not according to Dictionary.com<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/=
cadre>.=20
>>> Or Wiktionary <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cadre>. The primary=20
>>> definition of cadre is about military matters.
>>> =20
>>>
>>>> b) actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning that *C*onstructo=
r=20
>>>> *A*cquires, *D*estructor *R**e*leases
>>>>
>>>
>>> Acquires and releases *what?* At least RAII talks about *resources*.
>>> =20
>>>
>>>> c) it is actual word
>>>>
>>>> I think that instead of concentrating on what we know already, we=20
>>>> should concentrate of future and future of C++ - make it as easy to le=
arn=20
>>>> and use as possible. RAII is a silly, meaningless acronym, CADRe is no=
t.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The thing you keep missing in this discussion is where you are. This is=
=20
>>> a discussion group for the Standard for Programming Language C++. This=
=20
>>> standard does not teach RAII. It does not tell the reader how to use RA=
II.=20
>>> It *never mentions* RAII.
>>>
>>> You're suggesting that a document (the standard) be modified to change=
=20
>>> terminology *it never uses.
>>>
>>> *If you want to bikeshed CARDe vs. RAII vs. something else, fine. Just=
=20
>>> don't do it *here*; we discuss extensions to the *standard* here. And=
=20
>>> the standard does not talk about any of this. This is not the place for=
=20
>>> this discussion.
>>> =20
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now that I got used to the acronym, do you really want to change it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Similarly to changing habits of not using raw pointers and using=20
>>>> "smart" pointers instead.
>>>>
>>>> =20
>>>> On Friday, 16 November 2012 02:03:40 UTC, josedaniel.garcia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> As Nevin pointed out RAII is not a term defined by the standard.
>>>>>
>>>>> And by the way.=20
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a joke. Isn't it? Now that I got used to the acronym, do you=
=20
>>>>> really want to change it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=E1clav Zeman <vhai...@gmail.com>wr=
ote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky=
=20
>>>>>> napsal(a):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If so how would you feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as=
a
>>>>>>> CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor
>>>>>>> Releases, and on top of that is actually within the definition of=
=20
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> word (with slight changes to some of the wording):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting using=
=20
>>>>>> SBRM instead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Managemen=
t.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --=20
>>>>>> VZ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --=20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --=20
>>>>> Prof. J. Daniel Garcia
>>>>> Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Universidad
>>>>> Computer Architecture Group
>>>>> University Carlos III of Madrid
>>>>> Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22
>>>>> 28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain
>>>>> Tel: +34 918561316
>>>>> Fax: +34 91 856 1270
>>>>> e-mail: josedani...@uc3m.es
>>>>> Web: http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel
>>>>> =20
>>>>> Linked-In: http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia
>>>>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m
>>>>> =20
>>>>
--=20
------=_Part_1730_29517928.1353236098384
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;bor=
der-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">Your "is that English" remark =
was clearly directed at "Resource acquisition is initialization." Let's not=
pretend like you were talking about the acronym here.<br></blockquote><div=
><br></div><div>At this stage it is purely academic, and so it follows, mor=
e or less pointless and useless but would you mind not telling me what I ha=
d in mind? Because when I was speaking about RAII as a non-English word whi=
le CADRE is English.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;paddi=
ng-left: 1ex;">
I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd <i>never</i> heard of "CAD=
Re" before</blockquote><div><br></div><div>And your point is?</div><div><br=
></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.=
8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
There are C++ books that already exist, promoting the use of RAII and have =
done so for near on a decade now.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Again, yo=
ur point is?</div><div><br></div><div>RAII, omg, even when new people read =
it they have to really think about it. It is so unnatural and meaningless. =
And what that it has been in use for decade or more? Just like raw pointers=
are and now we have preferences for smart pointers - does it cause confusi=
on? Apparently only amongst people for whom recursion is no harder than ite=
ration. </div><div><br></div><div>CADRe reflects the whole technique much b=
etter than RAII, it simply does what it says on the tin.</div><div><br></di=
v><div>And just because you've never heard of something it doesn't mean tha=
t it is a bad idea. What kind of logic is this?</div><div><br></div><div>Di=
scussion with you Nicol is pointless. Why? Because you contradict yourself =
from post to post. Example:</div><div><br></div><div>You stated in one of y=
our post that recursion is no harder to iteration so there is no need for h=
aving a mechanism which would allow iteration over variadic templates. Yet,=
few post later, in another thread you are all heated up for static for? Wh=
y? Why would you like to have static for when you already can do what stati=
c for will do. You have recursion which according to you is no harder to it=
eration, so why would you waste time of everybody to have such a feature? W=
here is the consistency?</div><div><br></div>On Saturday, 17 November 2012 =
16:33:14 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex=
;"><br><br>On Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:05:04 AM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikov=
sky wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0=
..8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class=3D"gmai=
l_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pad=
ding-left:1ex">How is that not English? </blockquote><div>RAII? what w=
ord is that? is this english? CADRE is. </div></blockquote><div><br>Yo=
ur "is that English" remark was clearly directed at "Resource acquisition i=
s initialization." Let's not pretend like you were talking about the acrony=
m here.<br><br>In any case, there are plenty of acronyms that aren't Englis=
h words. RSA, JSON, XML, HTML, etc. That hasn't stopped people from using t=
hem.<br><br>I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd <i>never</i> h=
eard of "CADRe" before. There are C++ books that already exist, promoting t=
he use of RAII and have done so for near on a decade now.<br><br>Why should=
they be rewritten just to call it something else? This is the ultimate bik=
eshed issue: it will have a negligible effect on anything, it will only cre=
ate vast confusion between people who use the established name and people w=
ho don't.<br><br>RAII won; it got there first and it's in wide-spread use. =
<i>Let it go already</i>. You don't rename a term in wide usage just becaus=
e you feel it might be a bit better at describing what that functionality d=
oes.<br><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margi=
n-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>On Friday, 16=
November 2012 17:17:32 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;paddi=
ng-left:1ex"><br><br>On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:56:46 PM UTC-8, Arth=
ur Tchaikovsky wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;ma=
rgin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Jose<br><=
/div><div><br></div><div>Please note that there are people who are just abo=
ut to start learning C++ and it's for their benefits we should make the lan=
guage easier. Those who know C++ already don't need to even think before us=
ing this technique. They know it and they use it. I get it. It is for peopl=
e who don't know C++ and then you try to explain them RAII. It took me a wh=
ile before I understood the meaning of "unfolded" so to speak mnemonic. Res=
ource aquisition is initialization? What does it mean?!! Is this english?&n=
bsp;</div></blockquote><div><br>How is that <i>not </i>English? All of thos=
e are well-defined English words, fitting into a proper English sentence ac=
cording to English rules of grammar (subject-verb-object).<br> </div><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border=
-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>So no, it's not a joke. Why?</d=
iv><div>a) actually means something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly :=
a group of [functions] having some unifying relationship"</div></blockquot=
e><div><br>Not according to <a href=3D"http://dictionary.reference.com/brow=
se/cadre" target=3D"_blank">Dictionary.com</a>. Or <a href=3D"http://en.wik=
tionary.org/wiki/cadre" target=3D"_blank">Wiktionary</a>. The primary defin=
ition of cadre is about military matters.<br> </div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc s=
olid;padding-left:1ex"><div>b) actually does what it says - cooperate=
s, meaning that <b>C</b>onstructor <b>A</b>cquires, <b>D</b>estructor <b>R<=
/b><b>e</b>leases</div></blockquote><div><br>Acquires and releases <i>what?=
</i> At least RAII talks about <i>resources</i>.<br> </div><blockquote=
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px =
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>c) it is actual word</div><div><br></div>=
<div>I think that instead of concentrating on what we know already, we shou=
ld concentrate of future and future of C++ - make it as easy to learn and u=
se as possible. RAII is a silly, meaningless acronym, CADRe is not.</div></=
blockquote><div><br>The thing you keep missing in this discussion is where =
you are. This is a discussion group for the Standard for Programming Langua=
ge C++. This standard does not teach RAII. It does not tell the reader how =
to use RAII. It <i>never mentions</i> RAII.<br><br>You're suggesting that a=
document (the standard) be modified to change terminology <i>it never uses=
..<br><br></i>If you want to bikeshed CARDe vs. RAII vs. something else, fin=
e. Just don't do it <i>here</i>; we discuss extensions to the <i>standard</=
i> here. And the standard does not talk about any of this. This is not the =
place for this discussion.<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"=
style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef=
t:1ex"><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;m=
argin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Now that I go=
t used to the acronym, do you really want to change it?</blockquote><div><b=
r></div><div>Similarly to changing habits of not using raw pointers and usi=
ng "smart" pointers instead.</div><div><br></div><div> </div>On Friday=
, 16 November 2012 02:03:40 UTC, josedaniel.garcia wrote:<blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc s=
olid;padding-left:1ex">As Nevin pointed out RAII is not a term defined by t=
he standard.<div><br></div><div>And by the way. </div><div><br></div><=
div>This is a joke. Isn't it? Now that I got used to the acronym, do you re=
ally want to change it?</div>
<div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=
=E1clav Zeman <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a>vhai...@gmail.com</a>></span> wro=
te:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky napsal(a=
):<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">[...]<div><br> If so how would yo=
u feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as a<br>
CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor<br> Release=
s, and on top of that is actually within the definition of this<br> word (w=
ith slight changes to some of the wording):<br></div></blockquote><div>
Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting using SBRM i=
nstead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Management.<span><font=
color=3D"#888888"><br><br>-- <br>VZ<br><br></font></span></div>
<span><font color=3D"#888888">
-- <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <b=
r>Prof. J. Daniel Garcia<br>Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Unive=
rsidad<br>Computer Architecture Group<br>University Carlos III of Madrid<br=
>
Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22<br>28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain<br>Tel=
: +34 918561316<br>Fax: +34 91 856 1270<br>e-mail: <a>josedani...@uc3m.es</=
a><br>Web: <a href=3D"http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel" target=3D"_bla=
nk">http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel</a><br>
<br>Linked-In: <a href=3D"http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia</a><br>Twitter:&nbs=
p;<a href=3D"http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m" target=3D"_blank">http://=
www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
------=_Part_1730_29517928.1353236098384--
.
Author: Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 05:05:42 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_1068_18732214.1353243942035
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd never heard of "CADRe"=
=20
> before
>
Two things:
a) and your point is?
b) you've never heard of it because it is my idea and it is me who posted=
=20
it here for the first time in public.
On Saturday, 17 November 2012 16:33:14 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:05:04 AM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote=
:
>>
>> How is that not English?=20
>>
>> RAII? what word is that? is this english? CADRE is.=20
>>
>
> Your "is that English" remark was clearly directed at "Resource=20
> acquisition is initialization." Let's not pretend like you were talking=
=20
> about the acronym here.
>
> In any case, there are plenty of acronyms that aren't English words. RSA,=
=20
> JSON, XML, HTML, etc. That hasn't stopped people from using them.
>
> I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd *never* heard of "CADRe"=
=20
> before. There are C++ books that already exist, promoting the use of RAII=
=20
> and have done so for near on a decade now.
>
> Why should they be rewritten just to call it something else? This is the=
=20
> ultimate bikeshed issue: it will have a negligible effect on anything, it=
=20
> will only create vast confusion between people who use the established na=
me=20
> and people who don't.
>
> RAII won; it got there first and it's in wide-spread use. *Let it go=20
> already*. You don't rename a term in wide usage just because you feel it=
=20
> might be a bit better at describing what that functionality does.
>
>
>> On Friday, 16 November 2012 17:17:32 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:56:46 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky=20
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jose
>>>>
>>>> Please note that there are people who are just about to start learning=
=20
>>>> C++ and it's for their benefits we should make the language easier. Th=
ose=20
>>>> who know C++ already don't need to even think before using this techni=
que.=20
>>>> They know it and they use it. I get it. It is for people who don't kno=
w C++=20
>>>> and then you try to explain them RAII. It took me a while before I=20
>>>> understood the meaning of "unfolded" so to speak mnemonic. Resource=20
>>>> aquisition is initialization? What does it mean?!! Is this english?=20
>>>>
>>>
>>> How is that *not *English? All of those are well-defined English words,=
=20
>>> fitting into a proper English sentence according to English rules of=20
>>> grammar (subject-verb-object).
>>> =20
>>>
>>>> So no, it's not a joke. Why?
>>>> a) actually means something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a=
=20
>>>> group of [functions] having some unifying relationship"
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not according to Dictionary.com<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/=
cadre>.=20
>>> Or Wiktionary <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cadre>. The primary=20
>>> definition of cadre is about military matters.
>>> =20
>>>
>>>> b) actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning that *C*onstructo=
r=20
>>>> *A*cquires, *D*estructor *R**e*leases
>>>>
>>>
>>> Acquires and releases *what?* At least RAII talks about *resources*.
>>> =20
>>>
>>>> c) it is actual word
>>>>
>>>> I think that instead of concentrating on what we know already, we=20
>>>> should concentrate of future and future of C++ - make it as easy to le=
arn=20
>>>> and use as possible. RAII is a silly, meaningless acronym, CADRe is no=
t.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The thing you keep missing in this discussion is where you are. This is=
=20
>>> a discussion group for the Standard for Programming Language C++. This=
=20
>>> standard does not teach RAII. It does not tell the reader how to use RA=
II.=20
>>> It *never mentions* RAII.
>>>
>>> You're suggesting that a document (the standard) be modified to change=
=20
>>> terminology *it never uses.
>>>
>>> *If you want to bikeshed CARDe vs. RAII vs. something else, fine. Just=
=20
>>> don't do it *here*; we discuss extensions to the *standard* here. And=
=20
>>> the standard does not talk about any of this. This is not the place for=
=20
>>> this discussion.
>>> =20
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now that I got used to the acronym, do you really want to change it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Similarly to changing habits of not using raw pointers and using=20
>>>> "smart" pointers instead.
>>>>
>>>> =20
>>>> On Friday, 16 November 2012 02:03:40 UTC, josedaniel.garcia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> As Nevin pointed out RAII is not a term defined by the standard.
>>>>>
>>>>> And by the way.=20
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a joke. Isn't it? Now that I got used to the acronym, do you=
=20
>>>>> really want to change it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=E1clav Zeman <vhai...@gmail.com>wr=
ote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky=
=20
>>>>>> napsal(a):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If so how would you feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as=
a
>>>>>>> CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor
>>>>>>> Releases, and on top of that is actually within the definition of=
=20
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> word (with slight changes to some of the wording):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting using=
=20
>>>>>> SBRM instead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Managemen=
t.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --=20
>>>>>> VZ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --=20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --=20
>>>>> Prof. J. Daniel Garcia
>>>>> Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Universidad
>>>>> Computer Architecture Group
>>>>> University Carlos III of Madrid
>>>>> Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22
>>>>> 28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain
>>>>> Tel: +34 918561316
>>>>> Fax: +34 91 856 1270
>>>>> e-mail: josedani...@uc3m.es
>>>>> Web: http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel
>>>>> =20
>>>>> Linked-In: http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia
>>>>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m
>>>>> =20
>>>>
--=20
------=_Part_1068_18732214.1353243942035
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;bor=
der-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">I have heard alternative names=
for RAII, but I'd never heard of "CADRe" before<br></blockquote><div>Two t=
hings:</div><div>a) and your point is?<br>b) you've never heard of it becau=
se it is my idea and it is me who posted it here for the first time in publ=
ic.</div><br>On Saturday, 17 November 2012 16:33:14 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote=
:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;bo=
rder-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><br><br>On Saturday, November=
17, 2012 4:05:04 AM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:<blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;=
padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margi=
n-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">How is that not E=
nglish? </blockquote><div>RAII? what word is that? is this english? CA=
DRE is. </div></blockquote><div><br>Your "is that English" remark was =
clearly directed at "Resource acquisition is initialization." Let's not pre=
tend like you were talking about the acronym here.<br><br>In any case, ther=
e are plenty of acronyms that aren't English words. RSA, JSON, XML, HTML, e=
tc. That hasn't stopped people from using them.<br><br>I have heard alterna=
tive names for RAII, but I'd <i>never</i> heard of "CADRe" before. There ar=
e C++ books that already exist, promoting the use of RAII and have done so =
for near on a decade now.<br><br>Why should they be rewritten just to call =
it something else? This is the ultimate bikeshed issue: it will have a negl=
igible effect on anything, it will only create vast confusion between peopl=
e who use the established name and people who don't.<br><br>RAII won; it go=
t there first and it's in wide-spread use. <i>Let it go already</i>. You do=
n't rename a term in wide usage just because you feel it might be a bit bet=
ter at describing what that functionality does.<br><br></div><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #cc=
c solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>On Friday, 16 November 2012 17:17:32 UTC, Nic=
ol Bolas wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-=
left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br><br>On Thursday=
, November 15, 2012 10:56:46 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:<blockquote=
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px =
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Jose<br></div><div><br></div><div>Please =
note that there are people who are just about to start learning C++ and it'=
s for their benefits we should make the language easier. Those who know C++=
already don't need to even think before using this technique. They know it=
and they use it. I get it. It is for people who don't know C++ and then yo=
u try to explain them RAII. It took me a while before I understood the mean=
ing of "unfolded" so to speak mnemonic. Resource aquisition is initializati=
on? What does it mean?!! Is this english? </div></blockquote><div><br>=
How is that <i>not </i>English? All of those are well-defined English words=
, fitting into a proper English sentence according to English rules of gram=
mar (subject-verb-object).<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"=
style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef=
t:1ex"><div>So no, it's not a joke. Why?</div><div>a) actually means someth=
ing "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a group of [functions] having s=
ome unifying relationship"</div></blockquote><div><br>Not according to <a h=
ref=3D"http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cadre" target=3D"_blank">Dict=
ionary.com</a>. Or <a href=3D"http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cadre" target=
=3D"_blank">Wiktionary</a>. The primary definition of cadre is about milita=
ry matters.<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>b) =
actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning that <b>C</b>onstruc=
tor <b>A</b>cquires, <b>D</b>estructor <b>R</b><b>e</b>leases</div></blockq=
uote><div><br>Acquires and releases <i>what?</i> At least RAII talks about =
<i>resources</i>.<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><d=
iv>c) it is actual word</div><div><br></div><div>I think that instead of co=
ncentrating on what we know already, we should concentrate of future and fu=
ture of C++ - make it as easy to learn and use as possible. RAII is a silly=
, meaningless acronym, CADRe is not.</div></blockquote><div><br>The thing y=
ou keep missing in this discussion is where you are. This is a discussion g=
roup for the Standard for Programming Language C++. This standard does not =
teach RAII. It does not tell the reader how to use RAII. It <i>never mentio=
ns</i> RAII.<br><br>You're suggesting that a document (the standard) be mod=
ified to change terminology <i>it never uses.<br><br></i>If you want to bik=
eshed CARDe vs. RAII vs. something else, fine. Just don't do it <i>here</i>=
; we discuss extensions to the <i>standard</i> here. And the standard does =
not talk about any of this. This is not the place for this discussion.<br>&=
nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:=
0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Now that I got used to the acronym, do you r=
eally want to change it?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Similarly to chang=
ing habits of not using raw pointers and using "smart" pointers instead.</d=
iv><div><br></div><div> </div>On Friday, 16 November 2012 02:03:40 UTC=
, josedaniel.garcia wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">As Nevin=
pointed out RAII is not a term defined by the standard.<div><br></div><div=
>And by the way. </div><div><br></div><div>This is a joke. Isn't it? N=
ow that I got used to the acronym, do you really want to change it?</div>
<div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=
=E1clav Zeman <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a>vhai...@gmail.com</a>></span> wro=
te:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky napsal(a=
):<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">[...]<div><br> If so how would yo=
u feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as a<br>
CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor<br> Release=
s, and on top of that is actually within the definition of this<br> word (w=
ith slight changes to some of the wording):<br></div></blockquote><div>
Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting using SBRM i=
nstead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Management.<span><font=
color=3D"#888888"><br><br>-- <br>VZ<br><br></font></span></div>
<span><font color=3D"#888888">
-- <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <b=
r>Prof. J. Daniel Garcia<br>Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Unive=
rsidad<br>Computer Architecture Group<br>University Carlos III of Madrid<br=
>
Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22<br>28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain<br>Tel=
: +34 918561316<br>Fax: +34 91 856 1270<br>e-mail: <a>josedani...@uc3m.es</=
a><br>Web: <a href=3D"http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel" target=3D"_bla=
nk">http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel</a><br>
<br>Linked-In: <a href=3D"http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia</a><br>Twitter:&nbs=
p;<a href=3D"http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m" target=3D"_blank">http://=
www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
------=_Part_1068_18732214.1353243942035--
.
Author: Nicol Bolas <jmckesson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 09:12:00 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_1481_14330612.1353258720170
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:54:58 AM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:
>
> Your "is that English" remark was clearly directed at "Resource=20
>> acquisition is initialization." Let's not pretend like you were talking=
=20
>> about the acronym here.
>>
>
> At this stage it is purely academic, and so it follows, more or less=20
> pointless and useless but would you mind not telling me what I had in min=
d?=20
> Because when I was speaking about RAII as a non-English word while CADRE =
is=20
> English.
>
Then you should have made that more clear in your paragraph structure. Here=
=20
is a direct quote: "It took me a while before I understood the meaning of=
=20
"unfolded" so to speak mnemonic. Resource aquisition is initialization?=20
What does it mean?!! Is this english?"
The most recent thing that "this" could be referring to is "Resource=20
aquisition[sic] is initialization". That's what "it" referred to, so the=20
obvious inference is that "this" and "it" are talking about the same thing.
You made a mistake in your paragraph structure, leading to a=20
misunderstanding.
=20
> I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd *never* heard of "CADRe"=
=20
>> before
>
>
> And your point is?
>
That you're not going to convince the rest of the world to adopt your=20
language, just because you thought it up and think it's better. The=20
decision on what to call this technique has been made; it was made years=20
ago.
If you were Herb Sutter, Scott Meyers, and Bjarne Stroustrup all rolled=20
into one, you might, *might*, be able to convince the rest of the world to=
=20
adopt your terminology. But only by rewritting all of your books to excise=
=20
the old term in favor of the new.
As it stands, you are a guy on a forum. The ship has sailed. The horse is=
=20
out of the barn; trying to close the doors now isn't helping.
Oh, and again, *this is not the place to discuss this.* This is a place to=
=20
discuss issues related to the Standard for Programming Language C++, which=
=20
never mentions RAII at all. Please take it to some other forum where this=
=20
would be on-topic.
=20
> Discussion with you Nicol is pointless. Why? Because you contradict=20
> yourself from post to post. Example:
>
> You stated in one of your post that recursion is no harder to iteration s=
o=20
> there is no need for having a mechanism which would allow iteration over=
=20
> variadic templates.
>
No, I did not.
I stated that it had *not been demonstrated* that recursion was harder than=
=20
iteration. Because that was central to the argument, the argument that=20
there was a need for iteration over variadic templates was *flawed*.
It like this:
All fish live in the ocean.
All sharks are fish.
Therefore, all sharks live in the ocean.
The conclusion may be correct, but one of the premisses is factually=20
inaccurate. It is possible to agree with a conclusion *without* agreeing=20
with the *reasoning* that a person used to arrive at that conclusion. You=
=20
can want iteration, but *not* because it makes things easier.
=20
> Yet, few post later, in another thread you are all heated up for static=
=20
> for? Why? Why would you like to have static for when you already can do=
=20
> what static for will do. You have recursion which according to you is no=
=20
> harder to iteration, so why would you waste time of everybody to have suc=
h=20
> a feature? Where is the consistency?
>
Because static for is not about ease of use; it's about being able to do=20
what you *couldn't* do before. static for, particularly when applied to=20
member variables and functions, now allows a std::tuple to be a=20
standard-layout type (and possibly trivial), if its member types are=20
standard layout/trivial. It allows std::tuple to have named members in=20
addition to the `get<>` interface. It hooks into constexpr, allowing static=
=20
iteration over a static numerical range. It may have many other uses in=20
static reflection scenarios that have yet to be defined.
And yes, it also makes it easier to iterate over template parameter packs.=
=20
But that's only one part of a *much* larger feature. It's a... fortunate=20
consequence, not the primary designed purpose of the feature.
The difference between the original idea and his is that there was no=20
original idea at all. There was just "Let's allow iteration over parameter=
=20
packs... *somehow*." By providing an *actual* idea that is at least=20
conceptually implementable, it went from being a limited feature that=20
existed only to ostensibly satisfy people who can't figure out recursion,=
=20
to a real feature with innumerable uses that also just so happens to=20
satisfy people who can't figure out recursion.
See the difference? An actual idea is much better than "let's do this...=20
somehow."
On Saturday, 17 November 2012 16:33:14 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:05:04 AM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote=
:
>>>
>>> How is that not English?=20
>>>
>>> RAII? what word is that? is this english? CADRE is.=20
>>>
>>
>> Your "is that English" remark was clearly directed at "Resource=20
>> acquisition is initialization." Let's not pretend like you were talking=
=20
>> about the acronym here.
>>
>> In any case, there are plenty of acronyms that aren't English words. RSA=
,=20
>> JSON, XML, HTML, etc. That hasn't stopped people from using them.
>>
>> I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd *never* heard of=20
>> "CADRe" before. There are C++ books that already exist, promoting the us=
e=20
>> of RAII and have done so for near on a decade now.
>>
>> Why should they be rewritten just to call it something else? This is the=
=20
>> ultimate bikeshed issue: it will have a negligible effect on anything, i=
t=20
>> will only create vast confusion between people who use the established n=
ame=20
>> and people who don't.
>>
>> RAII won; it got there first and it's in wide-spread use. *Let it go=20
>> already*. You don't rename a term in wide usage just because you feel it=
=20
>> might be a bit better at describing what that functionality does.
>>
>>
>>> On Friday, 16 November 2012 17:17:32 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:56:46 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky=
=20
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jose
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note that there are people who are just about to start learnin=
g=20
>>>>> C++ and it's for their benefits we should make the language easier. T=
hose=20
>>>>> who know C++ already don't need to even think before using this techn=
ique.=20
>>>>> They know it and they use it. I get it. It is for people who don't kn=
ow C++=20
>>>>> and then you try to explain them RAII. It took me a while before I=20
>>>>> understood the meaning of "unfolded" so to speak mnemonic. Resource=
=20
>>>>> aquisition is initialization? What does it mean?!! Is this english?=
=20
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How is that *not *English? All of those are well-defined English=20
>>>> words, fitting into a proper English sentence according to English rul=
es of=20
>>>> grammar (subject-verb-object).
>>>> =20
>>>>
>>>>> So no, it's not a joke. Why?
>>>>> a) actually means something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a=
=20
>>>>> group of [functions] having some unifying relationship"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not according to Dictionary.com<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse=
/cadre>.=20
>>>> Or Wiktionary <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cadre>. The primary=20
>>>> definition of cadre is about military matters.
>>>> =20
>>>>
>>>>> b) actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning that *C*onstruct=
or=20
>>>>> *A*cquires, *D*estructor *R**e*leases
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Acquires and releases *what?* At least RAII talks about *resources*.
>>>> =20
>>>>
>>>>> c) it is actual word
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that instead of concentrating on what we know already, we=20
>>>>> should concentrate of future and future of C++ - make it as easy to l=
earn=20
>>>>> and use as possible. RAII is a silly, meaningless acronym, CADRe is n=
ot.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The thing you keep missing in this discussion is where you are. This i=
s=20
>>>> a discussion group for the Standard for Programming Language C++. This=
=20
>>>> standard does not teach RAII. It does not tell the reader how to use R=
AII.=20
>>>> It *never mentions* RAII.
>>>>
>>>> You're suggesting that a document (the standard) be modified to change=
=20
>>>> terminology *it never uses.
>>>>
>>>> *If you want to bikeshed CARDe vs. RAII vs. something else, fine. Just=
=20
>>>> don't do it *here*; we discuss extensions to the *standard* here. And=
=20
>>>> the standard does not talk about any of this. This is not the place fo=
r=20
>>>> this discussion.
>>>> =20
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that I got used to the acronym, do you really want to change it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly to changing habits of not using raw pointers and using=20
>>>>> "smart" pointers instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> =20
>>>>> On Friday, 16 November 2012 02:03:40 UTC, josedaniel.garcia wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As Nevin pointed out RAII is not a term defined by the standard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And by the way.=20
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a joke. Isn't it? Now that I got used to the acronym, do you=
=20
>>>>>> really want to change it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=E1clav Zeman <vhai...@gmail.com>w=
rote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky=
=20
>>>>>>> napsal(a):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If so how would you feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII a=
s=20
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor
>>>>>>>> Releases, and on top of that is actually within the definition of=
=20
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> word (with slight changes to some of the wording):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting usin=
g=20
>>>>>>> SBRM instead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Manageme=
nt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --=20
>>>>>>> VZ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --=20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --=20
>>>>>> Prof. J. Daniel Garcia
>>>>>> Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Universidad
>>>>>> Computer Architecture Group
>>>>>> University Carlos III of Madrid
>>>>>> Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22
>>>>>> 28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain
>>>>>> Tel: +34 918561316
>>>>>> Fax: +34 91 856 1270
>>>>>> e-mail: josedani...@uc3m.es
>>>>>> Web: http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> Linked-In: http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia
>>>>>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>
--=20
------=_Part_1481_14330612.1353258720170
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:54:58 AM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:<bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border=
-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"=
style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef=
t:1ex">Your "is that English" remark was clearly directed at "Resource acqu=
isition is initialization." Let's not pretend like you were talking about t=
he acronym here.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>At this stage it is pu=
rely academic, and so it follows, more or less pointless and useless but wo=
uld you mind not telling me what I had in mind? Because when I was speaking=
about RAII as a non-English word while CADRE is English.<br></div></blockq=
uote><div><br>Then you should have made that more clear in your paragraph s=
tructure. Here is a direct quote: "It took me a while before I understood t=
he meaning of "unfolded" so to speak mnemonic. Resource aquisition is initi=
alization? What does it mean?!! Is this english?"<br><br>The most recent th=
ing that "this" could be referring to is "Resource aquisition[sic] is initi=
alization". That's what "it" referred to, so the obvious inference is that =
"this" and "it" are talking about the same thing.<br><br>You made a mistake=
in your paragraph structure, leading to a misunderstanding.<br> </div=
><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;bo=
rder-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div></div><div></div><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:=
1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd <i>never</i> heard of "CAD=
Re" before</blockquote><div><br></div><div>And your point is?</div></blockq=
uote><div><br>That you're not going to convince the rest of the world to ad=
opt your language, just because you thought it up and think it's better. Th=
e decision on what to call this technique has been made; it was made years =
ago.<br><br>If you were Herb Sutter, Scott Meyers, and Bjarne Stroustrup al=
l rolled into one, you might, <i>might</i>, be able to convince the rest of=
the world to adopt your terminology. But only by rewritting all of your bo=
oks to excise the old term in favor of the new.<br><br>As it stands, you ar=
e a guy on a forum. The ship has sailed. The horse is out of the barn; tryi=
ng to close the doors now isn't helping.<br><br>Oh, and again, <i>this is n=
ot the place to discuss this.</i> This is a place to discuss issues related=
to the Standard for Programming Language C++, which never mentions RAII at=
all. Please take it to some other forum where this would be on-topic.<br>&=
nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left=
: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div>Discussion wit=
h you Nicol is pointless. Why? Because you contradict yourself from post to=
post. Example:</div><div><br></div><div>You stated in one of your post tha=
t recursion is no harder to iteration so there is no need for having a mech=
anism which would allow iteration over variadic templates.</div></blockquot=
e><div><br>No, I did not.<br><br>I stated that it had <i>not been demonstra=
ted</i> that recursion was harder than iteration. Because that was central =
to the argument, the argument that there was a need for iteration over vari=
adic templates was <i>flawed</i>.<br><br>It like this:<br><br><div class=3D=
"prettyprint" style=3D"background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250); border-color: =
rgb(187, 187, 187); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; word-wrap: brea=
k-word;"><code class=3D"prettyprint"><div class=3D"subprettyprint"><span st=
yle=3D"color: #606;" class=3D"styled-by-prettify">All</span><span style=3D"=
color: #000;" class=3D"styled-by-prettify"> fish live </span><span style=3D=
"color: #008;" class=3D"styled-by-prettify">in</span><span style=3D"color: =
#000;" class=3D"styled-by-prettify"> the ocean</span><span style=3D"color: =
#660;" class=3D"styled-by-prettify">.</span><span style=3D"color: #000;" cl=
ass=3D"styled-by-prettify"><br></span><span style=3D"color: #606;" class=3D=
"styled-by-prettify">All</span><span style=3D"color: #000;" class=3D"styled=
-by-prettify"> sharks are fish</span><span style=3D"color: #660;" class=3D"=
styled-by-prettify">.</span><span style=3D"color: #000;" class=3D"styled-by=
-prettify"><br></span><span style=3D"color: #606;" class=3D"styled-by-prett=
ify">Therefore</span><span style=3D"color: #660;" class=3D"styled-by-pretti=
fy">,</span><span style=3D"color: #000;" class=3D"styled-by-prettify"> all =
sharks live </span><span style=3D"color: #008;" class=3D"styled-by-prettify=
">in</span><span style=3D"color: #000;" class=3D"styled-by-prettify"> the o=
cean</span><span style=3D"color: #660;" class=3D"styled-by-prettify">.</spa=
n><span style=3D"color: #000;" class=3D"styled-by-prettify"><br></span></di=
v></code></div><br>The conclusion may be correct, but one of the premisses =
is factually inaccurate. It is possible to agree with a conclusion <i>witho=
ut</i> agreeing with the <i>reasoning</i> that a person used to arrive at t=
hat conclusion. You can want iteration, but <i>not</i> because it makes thi=
ngs easier.<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><di=
v>Yet, few post later, in another thread you are all heated up for static f=
or? Why? Why would you like to have static for when you already can do what=
static for will do. You have recursion which according to you is no harder=
to iteration, so why would you waste time of everybody to have such a feat=
ure? Where is the consistency?</div></blockquote><div><br>Because static fo=
r is not about ease of use; it's about being able to do what you <i>couldn'=
t</i> do before. static for, particularly when applied to member variables =
and functions, now allows a std::tuple to be a standard-layout type (and po=
ssibly trivial), if its member types are standard layout/trivial. It allows=
std::tuple to have named members in addition to the `get<>` interfac=
e. It hooks into constexpr, allowing static iteration over a static numeric=
al range. It may have many other uses in static reflection scenarios that h=
ave yet to be defined.<br><br>And yes, it also makes it easier to iterate o=
ver template parameter packs. But that's only one part of a <i>much</i> lar=
ger feature. It's a... fortunate consequence, not the primary designed purp=
ose of the feature.<br><br>The difference between the original idea and his=
is that there was no original idea at all. There was just "Let's allow ite=
ration over parameter packs... <i>somehow</i>." By providing an <i>actual</=
i> idea that is at least conceptually implementable, it went from being a l=
imited feature that existed only to ostensibly satisfy people who can't fig=
ure out recursion, to a real feature with innumerable uses that also just s=
o happens to satisfy people who can't figure out recursion.<br><br>See the =
difference? An actual idea is much better than "let's do this... somehow."<=
br><br>On Saturday, 17 November 2012 16:33:14 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:</div=
><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;bo=
rder-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding=
-left:1ex">On Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:05:04 AM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikov=
sky wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0=
..8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class=3D"gmai=
l_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pad=
ding-left:1ex">How is that not English? </blockquote><div>RAII? what w=
ord is that? is this english? CADRE is. </div></blockquote><div><br>Yo=
ur "is that English" remark was clearly directed at "Resource acquisition i=
s initialization." Let's not pretend like you were talking about the acrony=
m here.<br><br>In any case, there are plenty of acronyms that aren't Englis=
h words. RSA, JSON, XML, HTML, etc. That hasn't stopped people from using t=
hem.<br><br>I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd <i>never</i> h=
eard of "CADRe" before. There are C++ books that already exist, promoting t=
he use of RAII and have done so for near on a decade now.<br><br>Why should=
they be rewritten just to call it something else? This is the ultimate bik=
eshed issue: it will have a negligible effect on anything, it will only cre=
ate vast confusion between people who use the established name and people w=
ho don't.<br><br>RAII won; it got there first and it's in wide-spread use. =
<i>Let it go already</i>. You don't rename a term in wide usage just becaus=
e you feel it might be a bit better at describing what that functionality d=
oes.<br><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margi=
n-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>On Friday, 16=
November 2012 17:17:32 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;paddi=
ng-left:1ex"><br><br>On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:56:46 PM UTC-8, Arth=
ur Tchaikovsky wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;ma=
rgin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Jose<br><=
/div><div><br></div><div>Please note that there are people who are just abo=
ut to start learning C++ and it's for their benefits we should make the lan=
guage easier. Those who know C++ already don't need to even think before us=
ing this technique. They know it and they use it. I get it. It is for peopl=
e who don't know C++ and then you try to explain them RAII. It took me a wh=
ile before I understood the meaning of "unfolded" so to speak mnemonic. Res=
ource aquisition is initialization? What does it mean?!! Is this english?&n=
bsp;</div></blockquote><div><br>How is that <i>not </i>English? All of thos=
e are well-defined English words, fitting into a proper English sentence ac=
cording to English rules of grammar (subject-verb-object).<br> </div><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border=
-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>So no, it's not a joke. Why?</d=
iv><div>a) actually means something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly :=
a group of [functions] having some unifying relationship"</div></blockquot=
e><div><br>Not according to <a href=3D"http://dictionary.reference.com/brow=
se/cadre" target=3D"_blank">Dictionary.com</a>. Or <a href=3D"http://en.wik=
tionary.org/wiki/cadre" target=3D"_blank">Wiktionary</a>. The primary defin=
ition of cadre is about military matters.<br> </div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc s=
olid;padding-left:1ex"><div>b) actually does what it says - cooperate=
s, meaning that <b>C</b>onstructor <b>A</b>cquires, <b>D</b>estructor <b>R<=
/b><b>e</b>leases</div></blockquote><div><br>Acquires and releases <i>what?=
</i> At least RAII talks about <i>resources</i>.<br> </div><blockquote=
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px =
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>c) it is actual word</div><div><br></div>=
<div>I think that instead of concentrating on what we know already, we shou=
ld concentrate of future and future of C++ - make it as easy to learn and u=
se as possible. RAII is a silly, meaningless acronym, CADRe is not.</div></=
blockquote><div><br>The thing you keep missing in this discussion is where =
you are. This is a discussion group for the Standard for Programming Langua=
ge C++. This standard does not teach RAII. It does not tell the reader how =
to use RAII. It <i>never mentions</i> RAII.<br><br>You're suggesting that a=
document (the standard) be modified to change terminology <i>it never uses=
..<br><br></i>If you want to bikeshed CARDe vs. RAII vs. something else, fin=
e. Just don't do it <i>here</i>; we discuss extensions to the <i>standard</=
i> here. And the standard does not talk about any of this. This is not the =
place for this discussion.<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"=
style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef=
t:1ex"><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;m=
argin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Now that I go=
t used to the acronym, do you really want to change it?</blockquote><div><b=
r></div><div>Similarly to changing habits of not using raw pointers and usi=
ng "smart" pointers instead.</div><div><br></div><div> </div>On Friday=
, 16 November 2012 02:03:40 UTC, josedaniel.garcia wrote:<blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc s=
olid;padding-left:1ex">As Nevin pointed out RAII is not a term defined by t=
he standard.<div><br></div><div>And by the way. </div><div><br></div><=
div>This is a joke. Isn't it? Now that I got used to the acronym, do you re=
ally want to change it?</div>
<div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=
=E1clav Zeman <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a>vhai...@gmail.com</a>></span> wro=
te:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky napsal(a=
):<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">[...]<div><br> If so how would yo=
u feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as a<br>
CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor<br> Release=
s, and on top of that is actually within the definition of this<br> word (w=
ith slight changes to some of the wording):<br></div></blockquote><div>
Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting using SBRM i=
nstead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Management.<span><font=
color=3D"#888888"><br><br>-- <br>VZ<br><br></font></span></div>
<span><font color=3D"#888888">
-- <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <b=
r>Prof. J. Daniel Garcia<br>Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Unive=
rsidad<br>Computer Architecture Group<br>University Carlos III of Madrid<br=
>
Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22<br>28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain<br>Tel=
: +34 918561316<br>Fax: +34 91 856 1270<br>e-mail: <a>josedani...@uc3m.es</=
a><br>Web: <a href=3D"http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel" target=3D"_bla=
nk">http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~<wbr>jdaniel</a><br>
<br>Linked-In: <a href=3D"http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">http://es.linkedin.com/in/<wbr>jdanielgarcia</a><br>Twitter=
: <a href=3D"http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m" target=3D"_blank">ht=
tp://www.twitter.<wbr>com/jdgarciauc3m</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquo=
te>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
------=_Part_1481_14330612.1353258720170--
.
Author: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Dominiak?= <griwes@griwes.info>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 10:36:10 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_2166_26850309.1353263770546
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
His point (1) is that changing widely used term to some unknown to anyone=
=20
(2) term is pointless.
That mail of yours pretty much proved that this proposal makes completely=
=20
no sense. And standardizing the term for the technique is pretty idiotic.
On Sunday, 18 November 2012 14:05:42 UTC+1, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:
>
> I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd never heard of "CADRe"=
=20
>> before
>>
> Two things:
> a) and your point is?
> b) you've never heard of it because it is my idea and it is me who posted=
=20
> it here for the first time in public.
>
> On Saturday, 17 November 2012 16:33:14 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:05:04 AM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrot=
e:
>>>
>>> How is that not English?=20
>>>
>>> RAII? what word is that? is this english? CADRE is.=20
>>>
>>
>> Your "is that English" remark was clearly directed at "Resource=20
>> acquisition is initialization." Let's not pretend like you were talking=
=20
>> about the acronym here.
>>
>> In any case, there are plenty of acronyms that aren't English words. RSA=
,=20
>> JSON, XML, HTML, etc. That hasn't stopped people from using them.
>>
>> I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd *never* heard of=20
>> "CADRe" before. There are C++ books that already exist, promoting the us=
e=20
>> of RAII and have done so for near on a decade now.
>>
>> Why should they be rewritten just to call it something else? This is the=
=20
>> ultimate bikeshed issue: it will have a negligible effect on anything, i=
t=20
>> will only create vast confusion between people who use the established n=
ame=20
>> and people who don't.
>>
>> RAII won; it got there first and it's in wide-spread use. *Let it go=20
>> already*. You don't rename a term in wide usage just because you feel it=
=20
>> might be a bit better at describing what that functionality does.
>>
>>
>>> On Friday, 16 November 2012 17:17:32 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:56:46 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky=
=20
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jose
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note that there are people who are just about to start learnin=
g=20
>>>>> C++ and it's for their benefits we should make the language easier. T=
hose=20
>>>>> who know C++ already don't need to even think before using this techn=
ique.=20
>>>>> They know it and they use it. I get it. It is for people who don't kn=
ow C++=20
>>>>> and then you try to explain them RAII. It took me a while before I=20
>>>>> understood the meaning of "unfolded" so to speak mnemonic. Resource=
=20
>>>>> aquisition is initialization? What does it mean?!! Is this english?=
=20
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How is that *not *English? All of those are well-defined English=20
>>>> words, fitting into a proper English sentence according to English rul=
es of=20
>>>> grammar (subject-verb-object).
>>>> =20
>>>>
>>>>> So no, it's not a joke. Why?
>>>>> a) actually means something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a=
=20
>>>>> group of [functions] having some unifying relationship"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not according to Dictionary.com<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse=
/cadre>.=20
>>>> Or Wiktionary <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cadre>. The primary=20
>>>> definition of cadre is about military matters.
>>>> =20
>>>>
>>>>> b) actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning that *C*onstruct=
or=20
>>>>> *A*cquires, *D*estructor *R**e*leases
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Acquires and releases *what?* At least RAII talks about *resources*.
>>>> =20
>>>>
>>>>> c) it is actual word
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that instead of concentrating on what we know already, we=20
>>>>> should concentrate of future and future of C++ - make it as easy to l=
earn=20
>>>>> and use as possible. RAII is a silly, meaningless acronym, CADRe is n=
ot.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The thing you keep missing in this discussion is where you are. This i=
s=20
>>>> a discussion group for the Standard for Programming Language C++. This=
=20
>>>> standard does not teach RAII. It does not tell the reader how to use R=
AII.=20
>>>> It *never mentions* RAII.
>>>>
>>>> You're suggesting that a document (the standard) be modified to change=
=20
>>>> terminology *it never uses.
>>>>
>>>> *If you want to bikeshed CARDe vs. RAII vs. something else, fine. Just=
=20
>>>> don't do it *here*; we discuss extensions to the *standard* here. And=
=20
>>>> the standard does not talk about any of this. This is not the place fo=
r=20
>>>> this discussion.
>>>> =20
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that I got used to the acronym, do you really want to change it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly to changing habits of not using raw pointers and using=20
>>>>> "smart" pointers instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> =20
>>>>> On Friday, 16 November 2012 02:03:40 UTC, josedaniel.garcia wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As Nevin pointed out RAII is not a term defined by the standard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And by the way.=20
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a joke. Isn't it? Now that I got used to the acronym, do you=
=20
>>>>>> really want to change it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=E1clav Zeman <vhai...@gmail.com>w=
rote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky=
=20
>>>>>>> napsal(a):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If so how would you feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII a=
s=20
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor
>>>>>>>> Releases, and on top of that is actually within the definition of=
=20
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> word (with slight changes to some of the wording):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting usin=
g=20
>>>>>>> SBRM instead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Manageme=
nt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --=20
>>>>>>> VZ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --=20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --=20
>>>>>> Prof. J. Daniel Garcia
>>>>>> Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Universidad
>>>>>> Computer Architecture Group
>>>>>> University Carlos III of Madrid
>>>>>> Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22
>>>>>> 28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain
>>>>>> Tel: +34 918561316
>>>>>> Fax: +34 91 856 1270
>>>>>> e-mail: josedani...@uc3m.es
>>>>>> Web: http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> Linked-In: http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia
>>>>>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>
--=20
------=_Part_2166_26850309.1353263770546
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
His point (1) is that changing widely used term to some unknown to anyone (=
2) term is pointless.<div><br></div><div>That mail of yours pretty much pro=
ved that this proposal makes completely no sense. And standardizing the ter=
m for the technique is pretty idiotic.<br><br>On Sunday, 18 November 2012 1=
4:05:42 UTC+1, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" =
style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-l=
eft: 1ex;"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:=
0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I have heard alternative=
names for RAII, but I'd never heard of "CADRe" before<br></blockquote><div=
>Two things:</div><div>a) and your point is?<br>b) you've never heard of it=
because it is my idea and it is me who posted it here for the first time i=
n public.</div><br>On Saturday, 17 November 2012 16:33:14 UTC, Nicol Bolas =
wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8e=
x;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br><br>On Saturday, Novembe=
r 17, 2012 4:05:04 AM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:<blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid=
;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;marg=
in-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">How is that not =
English? </blockquote><div>RAII? what word is that? is this english? C=
ADRE is. </div></blockquote><div><br>Your "is that English" remark was=
clearly directed at "Resource acquisition is initialization." Let's not pr=
etend like you were talking about the acronym here.<br><br>In any case, the=
re are plenty of acronyms that aren't English words. RSA, JSON, XML, HTML, =
etc. That hasn't stopped people from using them.<br><br>I have heard altern=
ative names for RAII, but I'd <i>never</i> heard of "CADRe" before. There a=
re C++ books that already exist, promoting the use of RAII and have done so=
for near on a decade now.<br><br>Why should they be rewritten just to call=
it something else? This is the ultimate bikeshed issue: it will have a neg=
ligible effect on anything, it will only create vast confusion between peop=
le who use the established name and people who don't.<br><br>RAII won; it g=
ot there first and it's in wide-spread use. <i>Let it go already</i>. You d=
on't rename a term in wide usage just because you feel it might be a bit be=
tter at describing what that functionality does.<br><br></div><blockquote c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>On Friday, 16 November 2012 17:17:32 UTC, Ni=
col Bolas wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin=
-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br><br>On Thursda=
y, November 15, 2012 10:56:46 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:<blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px=
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Jose<br></div><div><br></div><div>Please=
note that there are people who are just about to start learning C++ and it=
's for their benefits we should make the language easier. Those who know C+=
+ already don't need to even think before using this technique. They know i=
t and they use it. I get it. It is for people who don't know C++ and then y=
ou try to explain them RAII. It took me a while before I understood the mea=
ning of "unfolded" so to speak mnemonic. Resource aquisition is initializat=
ion? What does it mean?!! Is this english? </div></blockquote><div><br=
>How is that <i>not </i>English? All of those are well-defined English word=
s, fitting into a proper English sentence according to English rules of gra=
mmar (subject-verb-object).<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote=
" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-le=
ft:1ex"><div>So no, it's not a joke. Why?</div><div>a) actually means somet=
hing "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a group of [functions] having =
some unifying relationship"</div></blockquote><div><br>Not according to <a =
href=3D"http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cadre" target=3D"_blank">Dic=
tionary.com</a>. Or <a href=3D"http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cadre" target=
=3D"_blank">Wiktionary</a>. The primary definition of cadre is about milita=
ry matters.<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>b) =
actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning that <b>C</b>onstruc=
tor <b>A</b>cquires, <b>D</b>estructor <b>R</b><b>e</b>leases</div></blockq=
uote><div><br>Acquires and releases <i>what?</i> At least RAII talks about =
<i>resources</i>.<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><d=
iv>c) it is actual word</div><div><br></div><div>I think that instead of co=
ncentrating on what we know already, we should concentrate of future and fu=
ture of C++ - make it as easy to learn and use as possible. RAII is a silly=
, meaningless acronym, CADRe is not.</div></blockquote><div><br>The thing y=
ou keep missing in this discussion is where you are. This is a discussion g=
roup for the Standard for Programming Language C++. This standard does not =
teach RAII. It does not tell the reader how to use RAII. It <i>never mentio=
ns</i> RAII.<br><br>You're suggesting that a document (the standard) be mod=
ified to change terminology <i>it never uses.<br><br></i>If you want to bik=
eshed CARDe vs. RAII vs. something else, fine. Just don't do it <i>here</i>=
; we discuss extensions to the <i>standard</i> here. And the standard does =
not talk about any of this. This is not the place for this discussion.<br>&=
nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:=
0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Now that I got used to the acronym, do you r=
eally want to change it?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Similarly to chang=
ing habits of not using raw pointers and using "smart" pointers instead.</d=
iv><div><br></div><div> </div>On Friday, 16 November 2012 02:03:40 UTC=
, josedaniel.garcia wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">As Nevin=
pointed out RAII is not a term defined by the standard.<div><br></div><div=
>And by the way. </div><div><br></div><div>This is a joke. Isn't it? N=
ow that I got used to the acronym, do you really want to change it?</div>
<div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=
=E1clav Zeman <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a>vhai...@gmail.com</a>></span> wro=
te:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky napsal(a=
):<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">[...]<div><br> If so how would yo=
u feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as a<br>
CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor<br> Release=
s, and on top of that is actually within the definition of this<br> word (w=
ith slight changes to some of the wording):<br></div></blockquote><div>
Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting using SBRM i=
nstead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Management.<span><font=
color=3D"#888888"><br><br>-- <br>VZ<br><br></font></span></div>
<span><font color=3D"#888888">
-- <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <b=
r>Prof. J. Daniel Garcia<br>Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Unive=
rsidad<br>Computer Architecture Group<br>University Carlos III of Madrid<br=
>
Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22<br>28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain<br>Tel=
: +34 918561316<br>Fax: +34 91 856 1270<br>e-mail: <a>josedani...@uc3m.es</=
a><br>Web: <a href=3D"http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel" target=3D"_bla=
nk">http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~<wbr>jdaniel</a><br>
<br>Linked-In: <a href=3D"http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">http://es.linkedin.com/in/<wbr>jdanielgarcia</a><br>Twitter=
: <a href=3D"http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m" target=3D"_blank">ht=
tp://www.twitter.<wbr>com/jdgarciauc3m</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquo=
te></div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
------=_Part_2166_26850309.1353263770546--
.
Author: Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 23:03:12 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_52_20392453.1353308592562
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> satisfy people who can't figure out recursion
>
It's about making life easier. I on few occasions explained that I do=20
understand how recursion works, and I also use it. The point is that=20
iteration is much more natural than recursion. But why would you listen?
See the difference? An actual idea is much better than "let's do this...=20
> somehow."
I've posted an initial idea for discussion, which you opposed from the very=
=20
beginning, claiming that it would break type system, and that there is=20
simply no way to do so. It looks like there is a way, but the will wasn't=
=20
there. That changes the picture.
On Sunday, 18 November 2012 17:12:00 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>
> On Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:54:58 AM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:
>>
>> Your "is that English" remark was clearly directed at "Resource=20
>>> acquisition is initialization." Let's not pretend like you were talking=
=20
>>> about the acronym here.
>>>
>>
>> At this stage it is purely academic, and so it follows, more or less=20
>> pointless and useless but would you mind not telling me what I had in mi=
nd?=20
>> Because when I was speaking about RAII as a non-English word while CADRE=
is=20
>> English.
>>
>
> Then you should have made that more clear in your paragraph structure.=20
> Here is a direct quote: "It took me a while before I understood the meani=
ng=20
> of "unfolded" so to speak mnemonic. Resource aquisition is initialization=
?=20
> What does it mean?!! Is this english?"
>
> The most recent thing that "this" could be referring to is "Resource=20
> aquisition[sic] is initialization". That's what "it" referred to, so the=
=20
> obvious inference is that "this" and "it" are talking about the same thin=
g.
>
> You made a mistake in your paragraph structure, leading to a=20
> misunderstanding.
> =20
>
>> I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd *never* heard of=20
>>> "CADRe" before
>>
>>
>> And your point is?
>>
>
> That you're not going to convince the rest of the world to adopt your=20
> language, just because you thought it up and think it's better. The=20
> decision on what to call this technique has been made; it was made years=
=20
> ago.
>
> If you were Herb Sutter, Scott Meyers, and Bjarne Stroustrup all rolled=
=20
> into one, you might, *might*, be able to convince the rest of the world=
=20
> to adopt your terminology. But only by rewritting all of your books to=20
> excise the old term in favor of the new.
>
> As it stands, you are a guy on a forum. The ship has sailed. The horse is=
=20
> out of the barn; trying to close the doors now isn't helping.
>
> Oh, and again, *this is not the place to discuss this.* This is a place=
=20
> to discuss issues related to the Standard for Programming Language C++,=
=20
> which never mentions RAII at all. Please take it to some other forum wher=
e=20
> this would be on-topic.
> =20
>
>> Discussion with you Nicol is pointless. Why? Because you contradict=20
>> yourself from post to post. Example:
>>
>> You stated in one of your post that recursion is no harder to iteration=
=20
>> so there is no need for having a mechanism which would allow iteration o=
ver=20
>> variadic templates.
>>
>
> No, I did not.
>
> I stated that it had *not been demonstrated* that recursion was harder=20
> than iteration. Because that was central to the argument, the argument th=
at=20
> there was a need for iteration over variadic templates was *flawed*.
>
> It like this:
>
> All fish live in the ocean.
> All sharks are fish.
> Therefore, all sharks live in the ocean.
>
> The conclusion may be correct, but one of the premisses is factually=20
> inaccurate. It is possible to agree with a conclusion *without* agreeing=
=20
> with the *reasoning* that a person used to arrive at that conclusion. You=
=20
> can want iteration, but *not* because it makes things easier.
> =20
>
>> Yet, few post later, in another thread you are all heated up for static=
=20
>> for? Why? Why would you like to have static for when you already can do=
=20
>> what static for will do. You have recursion which according to you is no=
=20
>> harder to iteration, so why would you waste time of everybody to have su=
ch=20
>> a feature? Where is the consistency?
>>
>
> Because static for is not about ease of use; it's about being able to do=
=20
> what you *couldn't* do before. static for, particularly when applied to=
=20
> member variables and functions, now allows a std::tuple to be a=20
> standard-layout type (and possibly trivial), if its member types are=20
> standard layout/trivial. It allows std::tuple to have named members in=20
> addition to the `get<>` interface. It hooks into constexpr, allowing stat=
ic=20
> iteration over a static numerical range. It may have many other uses in=
=20
> static reflection scenarios that have yet to be defined.
>
> And yes, it also makes it easier to iterate over template parameter packs=
..=20
> But that's only one part of a *much* larger feature. It's a... fortunate=
=20
> consequence, not the primary designed purpose of the feature.
>
> The difference between the original idea and his is that there was no=20
> original idea at all. There was just "Let's allow iteration over paramete=
r=20
> packs... *somehow*." By providing an *actual* idea that is at least=20
> conceptually implementable, it went from being a limited feature that=20
> existed only to ostensibly satisfy people who can't figure out recursion,=
=20
> to a real feature with innumerable uses that also just so happens to=20
> satisfy people who can't figure out recursion.
>
> See the difference? An actual idea is much better than "let's do this...=
=20
> somehow."
>
> On Saturday, 17 November 2012 16:33:14 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:05:04 AM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrot=
e:
>>>>
>>>> How is that not English?=20
>>>>
>>>> RAII? what word is that? is this english? CADRE is.=20
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your "is that English" remark was clearly directed at "Resource=20
>>> acquisition is initialization." Let's not pretend like you were talking=
=20
>>> about the acronym here.
>>>
>>> In any case, there are plenty of acronyms that aren't English words.=20
>>> RSA, JSON, XML, HTML, etc. That hasn't stopped people from using them.
>>>
>>> I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd *never* heard of=20
>>> "CADRe" before. There are C++ books that already exist, promoting the u=
se=20
>>> of RAII and have done so for near on a decade now.
>>>
>>> Why should they be rewritten just to call it something else? This is th=
e=20
>>> ultimate bikeshed issue: it will have a negligible effect on anything, =
it=20
>>> will only create vast confusion between people who use the established =
name=20
>>> and people who don't.
>>>
>>> RAII won; it got there first and it's in wide-spread use. *Let it go=20
>>> already*. You don't rename a term in wide usage just because you feel=
=20
>>> it might be a bit better at describing what that functionality does.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Friday, 16 November 2012 17:17:32 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:56:46 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky=
=20
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jose
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please note that there are people who are just about to start=20
>>>>>> learning C++ and it's for their benefits we should make the language=
=20
>>>>>> easier. Those who know C++ already don't need to even think before u=
sing=20
>>>>>> this technique. They know it and they use it. I get it. It is for pe=
ople=20
>>>>>> who don't know C++ and then you try to explain them RAII. It took me=
a=20
>>>>>> while before I understood the meaning of "unfolded" so to speak mnem=
onic.=20
>>>>>> Resource aquisition is initialization? What does it mean?!! Is this=
=20
>>>>>> english?=20
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How is that *not *English? All of those are well-defined English=20
>>>>> words, fitting into a proper English sentence according to English ru=
les of=20
>>>>> grammar (subject-verb-object).
>>>>> =20
>>>>>
>>>>>> So no, it's not a joke. Why?
>>>>>> a) actually means something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : =
a=20
>>>>>> group of [functions] having some unifying relationship"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not according to Dictionary.com<http://dictionary.reference.com/brows=
e/cadre>.=20
>>>>> Or Wiktionary <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cadre>. The primary=20
>>>>> definition of cadre is about military matters.
>>>>> =20
>>>>>
>>>>>> b) actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning that *C*onstruc=
tor=20
>>>>>> *A*cquires, *D*estructor *R**e*leases
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Acquires and releases *what?* At least RAII talks about *resources*.
>>>>> =20
>>>>>
>>>>>> c) it is actual word
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that instead of concentrating on what we know already, we=20
>>>>>> should concentrate of future and future of C++ - make it as easy to =
learn=20
>>>>>> and use as possible. RAII is a silly, meaningless acronym, CADRe is =
not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The thing you keep missing in this discussion is where you are. This=
=20
>>>>> is a discussion group for the Standard for Programming Language C++. =
This=20
>>>>> standard does not teach RAII. It does not tell the reader how to use =
RAII.=20
>>>>> It *never mentions* RAII.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're suggesting that a document (the standard) be modified to chang=
e=20
>>>>> terminology *it never uses.
>>>>>
>>>>> *If you want to bikeshed CARDe vs. RAII vs. something else, fine.=20
>>>>> Just don't do it *here*; we discuss extensions to the *standard*here.=
And the standard does not talk about any of this. This is not the=20
>>>>> place for this discussion.
>>>>> =20
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that I got used to the acronym, do you really want to change it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Similarly to changing habits of not using raw pointers and using=20
>>>>>> "smart" pointers instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> On Friday, 16 November 2012 02:03:40 UTC, josedaniel.garcia wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As Nevin pointed out RAII is not a term defined by the standard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And by the way.=20
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a joke. Isn't it? Now that I got used to the acronym, do yo=
u=20
>>>>>>> really want to change it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=E1clav Zeman <vhai...@gmail.com>=
wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky=
=20
>>>>>>>> napsal(a):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If so how would you feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII=
=20
>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>> CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor
>>>>>>>>> Releases, and on top of that is actually within the definition of=
=20
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> word (with slight changes to some of the wording):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting=20
>>>>>>>> using SBRM instead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource M=
anagement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --=20
>>>>>>>> VZ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --=20
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --=20
>>>>>>> Prof. J. Daniel Garcia
>>>>>>> Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Universidad
>>>>>>> Computer Architecture Group
>>>>>>> University Carlos III of Madrid
>>>>>>> Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22
>>>>>>> 28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain
>>>>>>> Tel: +34 918561316
>>>>>>> Fax: +34 91 856 1270
>>>>>>> e-mail: josedani...@uc3m.es
>>>>>>> Web: http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> Linked-In: http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia
>>>>>>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>
--=20
------=_Part_52_20392453.1353308592562
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;bor=
der-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">satisfy people who can't figur=
e out recursion<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It's about making life =
easier. I on few occasions explained that I do understand how recursion wor=
ks, and I also use it. The point is that iteration is much more natural tha=
n recursion. But why would you listen?</div><div><br></div><blockquote clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
See the difference? An actual idea is much better than "let's do this... so=
mehow."</blockquote><div>I've posted an initial idea for discussion, which =
you opposed from the very beginning, claiming that it would break type syst=
em, and that there is simply no way to do so. It looks like there is a way,=
but the will wasn't there. That changes the picture.</div><div><br></div>O=
n Sunday, 18 November 2012 17:12:00 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:<blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #=
ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">On Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:54:58 AM UTC-8=
, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockqu=
ote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1=
px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Your "is that English" remark was clearly d=
irected at "Resource acquisition is initialization." Let's not pretend like=
you were talking about the acronym here.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><d=
iv>At this stage it is purely academic, and so it follows, more or less poi=
ntless and useless but would you mind not telling me what I had in mind? Be=
cause when I was speaking about RAII as a non-English word while CADRE is E=
nglish.<br></div></blockquote><div><br>Then you should have made that more =
clear in your paragraph structure. Here is a direct quote: "It took me a wh=
ile before I understood the meaning of "unfolded" so to speak mnemonic. Res=
ource aquisition is initialization? What does it mean?!! Is this english?"<=
br><br>The most recent thing that "this" could be referring to is "Resource=
aquisition[sic] is initialization". That's what "it" referred to, so the o=
bvious inference is that "this" and "it" are talking about the same thing.<=
br><br>You made a mistake in your paragraph structure, leading to a misunde=
rstanding.<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin=
:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd <i>never</i> heard of "CAD=
Re" before</blockquote><div><br></div><div>And your point is?</div></blockq=
uote><div><br>That you're not going to convince the rest of the world to ad=
opt your language, just because you thought it up and think it's better. Th=
e decision on what to call this technique has been made; it was made years =
ago.<br><br>If you were Herb Sutter, Scott Meyers, and Bjarne Stroustrup al=
l rolled into one, you might, <i>might</i>, be able to convince the rest of=
the world to adopt your terminology. But only by rewritting all of your bo=
oks to excise the old term in favor of the new.<br><br>As it stands, you ar=
e a guy on a forum. The ship has sailed. The horse is out of the barn; tryi=
ng to close the doors now isn't helping.<br><br>Oh, and again, <i>this is n=
ot the place to discuss this.</i> This is a place to discuss issues related=
to the Standard for Programming Language C++, which never mentions RAII at=
all. Please take it to some other forum where this would be on-topic.<br>&=
nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:=
0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Discussion with you=
Nicol is pointless. Why? Because you contradict yourself from post to post=
.. Example:</div><div><br></div><div>You stated in one of your post that rec=
ursion is no harder to iteration so there is no need for having a mechanism=
which would allow iteration over variadic templates.</div></blockquote><di=
v><br>No, I did not.<br><br>I stated that it had <i>not been demonstrated</=
i> that recursion was harder than iteration. Because that was central to th=
e argument, the argument that there was a need for iteration over variadic =
templates was <i>flawed</i>.<br><br>It like this:<br><br><div style=3D"back=
ground-color:rgb(250,250,250);border-color:rgb(187,187,187);border-style:so=
lid;border-width:1px;word-wrap:break-word"><code><div><span style=3D"color:=
#606">All</span><span style=3D"color:#000"> fish live </span><span style=3D=
"color:#008">in</span><span style=3D"color:#000"> the ocean</span><span sty=
le=3D"color:#660">.</span><span style=3D"color:#000"><br></span><span style=
=3D"color:#606">All</span><span style=3D"color:#000"> sharks are fish</span=
><span style=3D"color:#660">.</span><span style=3D"color:#000"><br></span><=
span style=3D"color:#606">Therefore</span><span style=3D"color:#660">,</spa=
n><span style=3D"color:#000"> all sharks live </span><span style=3D"color:#=
008">in</span><span style=3D"color:#000"> the ocean</span><span style=3D"co=
lor:#660">.</span><span style=3D"color:#000"><br></span></div></code></div>=
<br>The conclusion may be correct, but one of the premisses is factually in=
accurate. It is possible to agree with a conclusion <i>without</i> agreeing=
with the <i>reasoning</i> that a person used to arrive at that conclusion.=
You can want iteration, but <i>not</i> because it makes things easier.<br>=
</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left=
:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Yet, few post late=
r, in another thread you are all heated up for static for? Why? Why would y=
ou like to have static for when you already can do what static for will do.=
You have recursion which according to you is no harder to iteration, so wh=
y would you waste time of everybody to have such a feature? Where is the co=
nsistency?</div></blockquote><div><br>Because static for is not about ease =
of use; it's about being able to do what you <i>couldn't</i> do before. sta=
tic for, particularly when applied to member variables and functions, now a=
llows a std::tuple to be a standard-layout type (and possibly trivial), if =
its member types are standard layout/trivial. It allows std::tuple to have =
named members in addition to the `get<>` interface. It hooks into con=
stexpr, allowing static iteration over a static numerical range. It may hav=
e many other uses in static reflection scenarios that have yet to be define=
d.<br><br>And yes, it also makes it easier to iterate over template paramet=
er packs. But that's only one part of a <i>much</i> larger feature. It's a.=
... fortunate consequence, not the primary designed purpose of the feature.<=
br><br>The difference between the original idea and his is that there was n=
o original idea at all. There was just "Let's allow iteration over paramete=
r packs... <i>somehow</i>." By providing an <i>actual</i> idea that is at l=
east conceptually implementable, it went from being a limited feature that =
existed only to ostensibly satisfy people who can't figure out recursion, t=
o a real feature with innumerable uses that also just so happens to satisfy=
people who can't figure out recursion.<br><br>See the difference? An actua=
l idea is much better than "let's do this... somehow."<br><br>On Saturday, =
17 November 2012 16:33:14 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:</div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc s=
olid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;=
margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Saturday,=
November 17, 2012 4:05:04 AM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:<blockquote c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">How is t=
hat not English? </blockquote><div>RAII? what word is that? is this en=
glish? CADRE is. </div></blockquote><div><br>Your "is that English" re=
mark was clearly directed at "Resource acquisition is initialization." Let'=
s not pretend like you were talking about the acronym here.<br><br>In any c=
ase, there are plenty of acronyms that aren't English words. RSA, JSON, XML=
, HTML, etc. That hasn't stopped people from using them.<br><br>I have hear=
d alternative names for RAII, but I'd <i>never</i> heard of "CADRe" before.=
There are C++ books that already exist, promoting the use of RAII and have=
done so for near on a decade now.<br><br>Why should they be rewritten just=
to call it something else? This is the ultimate bikeshed issue: it will ha=
ve a negligible effect on anything, it will only create vast confusion betw=
een people who use the established name and people who don't.<br><br>RAII w=
on; it got there first and it's in wide-spread use. <i>Let it go already</i=
>. You don't rename a term in wide usage just because you feel it might be =
a bit better at describing what that functionality does.<br><br></div><bloc=
kquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-lef=
t:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>On Friday, 16 November 2012 17:17:32=
UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br><br>On=
Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:56:46 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:<b=
lockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-=
left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Jose<br></div><div><br></div><di=
v>Please note that there are people who are just about to start learning C+=
+ and it's for their benefits we should make the language easier. Those who=
know C++ already don't need to even think before using this technique. The=
y know it and they use it. I get it. It is for people who don't know C++ an=
d then you try to explain them RAII. It took me a while before I understood=
the meaning of "unfolded" so to speak mnemonic. Resource aquisition is ini=
tialization? What does it mean?!! Is this english? </div></blockquote>=
<div><br>How is that <i>not </i>English? All of those are well-defined Engl=
ish words, fitting into a proper English sentence according to English rule=
s of grammar (subject-verb-object).<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pa=
dding-left:1ex"><div>So no, it's not a joke. Why?</div><div>a) actually mea=
ns something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a group of [functions]=
having some unifying relationship"</div></blockquote><div><br>Not accordin=
g to <a href=3D"http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cadre" target=3D"_bl=
ank">Dictionary.com</a>. Or <a href=3D"http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cadre"=
target=3D"_blank">Wiktionary</a>. The primary definition of cadre is about=
military matters.<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"=
><div>b) actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning that <b>C</=
b>onstructor <b>A</b>cquires, <b>D</b>estructor <b>R</b><b>e</b>leases</div=
></blockquote><div><br>Acquires and releases <i>what?</i> At least RAII tal=
ks about <i>resources</i>.<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"=
style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef=
t:1ex"><div>c) it is actual word</div><div><br></div><div>I think that inst=
ead of concentrating on what we know already, we should concentrate of futu=
re and future of C++ - make it as easy to learn and use as possible. RAII i=
s a silly, meaningless acronym, CADRe is not.</div></blockquote><div><br>Th=
e thing you keep missing in this discussion is where you are. This is a dis=
cussion group for the Standard for Programming Language C++. This standard =
does not teach RAII. It does not tell the reader how to use RAII. It <i>nev=
er mentions</i> RAII.<br><br>You're suggesting that a document (the standar=
d) be modified to change terminology <i>it never uses.<br><br></i>If you wa=
nt to bikeshed CARDe vs. RAII vs. something else, fine. Just don't do it <i=
>here</i>; we discuss extensions to the <i>standard</i> here. And the stand=
ard does not talk about any of this. This is not the place for this discuss=
ion.<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;mar=
gin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div>=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;borde=
r-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Now that I got used to the acronym,=
do you really want to change it?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Similarly=
to changing habits of not using raw pointers and using "smart" pointers in=
stead.</div><div><br></div><div> </div>On Friday, 16 November 2012 02:=
03:40 UTC, josedaniel.garcia wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"=
>As Nevin pointed out RAII is not a term defined by the standard.<div><br><=
/div><div>And by the way. </div><div><br></div><div>This is a joke. Is=
n't it? Now that I got used to the acronym, do you really want to change it=
?</div>
<div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=
=E1clav Zeman <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a>vhai...@gmail.com</a>></span> wro=
te:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky napsal(a=
):<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">[...]<div><br> If so how would yo=
u feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as a<br>
CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor<br> Release=
s, and on top of that is actually within the definition of this<br> word (w=
ith slight changes to some of the wording):<br></div></blockquote><div>
Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting using SBRM i=
nstead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Management.<span><font=
color=3D"#888888"><br><br>-- <br>VZ<br><br></font></span></div>
<span><font color=3D"#888888">
-- <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <b=
r>Prof. J. Daniel Garcia<br>Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Unive=
rsidad<br>Computer Architecture Group<br>University Carlos III of Madrid<br=
>
Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22<br>28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain<br>Tel=
: +34 918561316<br>Fax: +34 91 856 1270<br>e-mail: <a>josedani...@uc3m.es</=
a><br>Web: <a href=3D"http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel" target=3D"_bla=
nk">http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel</a><br>
<br>Linked-In: <a href=3D"http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia</a><br>Twitter:&nbs=
p;<a href=3D"http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m" target=3D"_blank">http://=
www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquo=
te></blockquote>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
------=_Part_52_20392453.1353308592562--
.
Author: Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 23:05:48 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_948_21764335.1353308748559
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Micha=C5=82
Would you mind and watch your language? You're not at your mother's, so=20
please at least pretend that you have some basic manners. Or am I to=20
understand that we are to use any language we like from now on?
On Sunday, 18 November 2012 18:36:10 UTC, Micha=C5=82 Dominiak wrote:
>
> His point (1) is that changing widely used term to some unknown to anyone=
=20
> (2) term is pointless.
>
> That mail of yours pretty much proved that this proposal makes completely=
=20
> no sense. And standardizing the term for the technique is pretty idiotic.
>
> On Sunday, 18 November 2012 14:05:42 UTC+1, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:
>>
>> I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd never heard of "CADRe"=
=20
>>> before
>>>
>> Two things:
>> a) and your point is?
>> b) you've never heard of it because it is my idea and it is me who poste=
d=20
>> it here for the first time in public.
>>
>> On Saturday, 17 November 2012 16:33:14 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:05:04 AM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky=20
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How is that not English?=20
>>>>
>>>> RAII? what word is that? is this english? CADRE is.=20
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your "is that English" remark was clearly directed at "Resource=20
>>> acquisition is initialization." Let's not pretend like you were talking=
=20
>>> about the acronym here.
>>>
>>> In any case, there are plenty of acronyms that aren't English words.=20
>>> RSA, JSON, XML, HTML, etc. That hasn't stopped people from using them.
>>>
>>> I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd *never* heard of=20
>>> "CADRe" before. There are C++ books that already exist, promoting the u=
se=20
>>> of RAII and have done so for near on a decade now.
>>>
>>> Why should they be rewritten just to call it something else? This is th=
e=20
>>> ultimate bikeshed issue: it will have a negligible effect on anything, =
it=20
>>> will only create vast confusion between people who use the established =
name=20
>>> and people who don't.
>>>
>>> RAII won; it got there first and it's in wide-spread use. *Let it go=20
>>> already*. You don't rename a term in wide usage just because you feel=
=20
>>> it might be a bit better at describing what that functionality does.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Friday, 16 November 2012 17:17:32 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:56:46 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky=
=20
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jose
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please note that there are people who are just about to start=20
>>>>>> learning C++ and it's for their benefits we should make the language=
=20
>>>>>> easier. Those who know C++ already don't need to even think before u=
sing=20
>>>>>> this technique. They know it and they use it. I get it. It is for pe=
ople=20
>>>>>> who don't know C++ and then you try to explain them RAII. It took me=
a=20
>>>>>> while before I understood the meaning of "unfolded" so to speak mnem=
onic.=20
>>>>>> Resource aquisition is initialization? What does it mean?!! Is this=
=20
>>>>>> english?=20
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How is that *not *English? All of those are well-defined English=20
>>>>> words, fitting into a proper English sentence according to English ru=
les of=20
>>>>> grammar (subject-verb-object).
>>>>> =20
>>>>>
>>>>>> So no, it's not a joke. Why?
>>>>>> a) actually means something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : =
a=20
>>>>>> group of [functions] having some unifying relationship"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not according to Dictionary.com<http://dictionary.reference.com/brows=
e/cadre>.=20
>>>>> Or Wiktionary <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cadre>. The primary=20
>>>>> definition of cadre is about military matters.
>>>>> =20
>>>>>
>>>>>> b) actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning that *C*onstruc=
tor=20
>>>>>> *A*cquires, *D*estructor *R**e*leases
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Acquires and releases *what?* At least RAII talks about *resources*.
>>>>> =20
>>>>>
>>>>>> c) it is actual word
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that instead of concentrating on what we know already, we=20
>>>>>> should concentrate of future and future of C++ - make it as easy to =
learn=20
>>>>>> and use as possible. RAII is a silly, meaningless acronym, CADRe is =
not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The thing you keep missing in this discussion is where you are. This=
=20
>>>>> is a discussion group for the Standard for Programming Language C++. =
This=20
>>>>> standard does not teach RAII. It does not tell the reader how to use =
RAII.=20
>>>>> It *never mentions* RAII.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're suggesting that a document (the standard) be modified to chang=
e=20
>>>>> terminology *it never uses.
>>>>>
>>>>> *If you want to bikeshed CARDe vs. RAII vs. something else, fine.=20
>>>>> Just don't do it *here*; we discuss extensions to the *standard*here.=
And the standard does not talk about any of this. This is not the=20
>>>>> place for this discussion.
>>>>> =20
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that I got used to the acronym, do you really want to change it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Similarly to changing habits of not using raw pointers and using=20
>>>>>> "smart" pointers instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> On Friday, 16 November 2012 02:03:40 UTC, josedaniel.garcia wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As Nevin pointed out RAII is not a term defined by the standard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And by the way.=20
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a joke. Isn't it? Now that I got used to the acronym, do yo=
u=20
>>>>>>> really want to change it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=C3=A1clav Zeman <vhai...@gmail.c=
om>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dne =C3=BAter=C3=BD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchai=
kovsky=20
>>>>>>>> napsal(a):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If so how would you feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII=
=20
>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>> CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor
>>>>>>>>> Releases, and on top of that is actually within the definition of=
=20
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> word (with slight changes to some of the wording):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting=20
>>>>>>>> using SBRM instead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource M=
anagement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --=20
>>>>>>>> VZ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --=20
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --=20
>>>>>>> Prof. J. Daniel Garcia
>>>>>>> Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Universidad
>>>>>>> Computer Architecture Group
>>>>>>> University Carlos III of Madrid
>>>>>>> Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22
>>>>>>> 28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain
>>>>>>> Tel: +34 918561316
>>>>>>> Fax: +34 91 856 1270
>>>>>>> e-mail: josedani...@uc3m.es
>>>>>>> Web: http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> Linked-In: http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia
>>>>>>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>
--=20
------=_Part_948_21764335.1353308748559
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div>Micha=C5=82<br></div><div><br></div><div>Would you mind and watch your=
language? You're not at your mother's, so please at least pretend that you=
have some basic manners. Or am I to understand that we are to use any lang=
uage we like from now on?</div><div><br></div><br>On Sunday, 18 November 20=
12 18:36:10 UTC, Micha=C5=82 Dominiak wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;paddi=
ng-left: 1ex;">His point (1) is that changing widely used term to some unkn=
own to anyone (2) term is pointless.<div><br></div><div>That mail of yours =
pretty much proved that this proposal makes completely no sense. And standa=
rdizing the term for the technique is pretty idiotic.<br><br>On Sunday, 18 =
November 2012 14:05:42 UTC+1, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:<blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc s=
olid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;=
margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I have heard=
alternative names for RAII, but I'd never heard of "CADRe" before<br></blo=
ckquote><div>Two things:</div><div>a) and your point is?<br>b) you've never=
heard of it because it is my idea and it is me who posted it here for the =
first time in public.</div><br>On Saturday, 17 November 2012 16:33:14 UTC, =
Nicol Bolas wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;marg=
in-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br><br>On Satur=
day, November 17, 2012 4:05:04 AM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:<blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">How =
is that not English? </blockquote><div>RAII? what word is that? is thi=
s english? CADRE is. </div></blockquote><div><br>Your "is that English=
" remark was clearly directed at "Resource acquisition is initialization." =
Let's not pretend like you were talking about the acronym here.<br><br>In a=
ny case, there are plenty of acronyms that aren't English words. RSA, JSON,=
XML, HTML, etc. That hasn't stopped people from using them.<br><br>I have =
heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd <i>never</i> heard of "CADRe" bef=
ore. There are C++ books that already exist, promoting the use of RAII and =
have done so for near on a decade now.<br><br>Why should they be rewritten =
just to call it something else? This is the ultimate bikeshed issue: it wil=
l have a negligible effect on anything, it will only create vast confusion =
between people who use the established name and people who don't.<br><br>RA=
II won; it got there first and it's in wide-spread use. <i>Let it go alread=
y</i>. You don't rename a term in wide usage just because you feel it might=
be a bit better at describing what that functionality does.<br><br></div><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border=
-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>On Friday, 16 November 2012 17:1=
7:32 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br><b=
r>On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:56:46 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrot=
e:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Jose<br></div><div><br></div=
><div>Please note that there are people who are just about to start learnin=
g C++ and it's for their benefits we should make the language easier. Those=
who know C++ already don't need to even think before using this technique.=
They know it and they use it. I get it. It is for people who don't know C+=
+ and then you try to explain them RAII. It took me a while before I unders=
tood the meaning of "unfolded" so to speak mnemonic. Resource aquisition is=
initialization? What does it mean?!! Is this english? </div></blockqu=
ote><div><br>How is that <i>not </i>English? All of those are well-defined =
English words, fitting into a proper English sentence according to English =
rules of grammar (subject-verb-object).<br> </div><blockquote class=3D=
"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc soli=
d;padding-left:1ex"><div>So no, it's not a joke. Why?</div><div>a) actually=
means something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a group of [functi=
ons] having some unifying relationship"</div></blockquote><div><br>Not acco=
rding to <a href=3D"http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cadre" target=3D=
"_blank">Dictionary.com</a>. Or <a href=3D"http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ca=
dre" target=3D"_blank">Wiktionary</a>. The primary definition of cadre is a=
bout military matters.<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty=
le=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1e=
x"><div>b) actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning that <b>C=
</b>onstructor <b>A</b>cquires, <b>D</b>estructor <b>R</b><b>e</b>leases</d=
iv></blockquote><div><br>Acquires and releases <i>what?</i> At least RAII t=
alks about <i>resources</i>.<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-l=
eft:1ex"><div>c) it is actual word</div><div><br></div><div>I think that in=
stead of concentrating on what we know already, we should concentrate of fu=
ture and future of C++ - make it as easy to learn and use as possible. RAII=
is a silly, meaningless acronym, CADRe is not.</div></blockquote><div><br>=
The thing you keep missing in this discussion is where you are. This is a d=
iscussion group for the Standard for Programming Language C++. This standar=
d does not teach RAII. It does not tell the reader how to use RAII. It <i>n=
ever mentions</i> RAII.<br><br>You're suggesting that a document (the stand=
ard) be modified to change terminology <i>it never uses.<br><br></i>If you =
want to bikeshed CARDe vs. RAII vs. something else, fine. Just don't do it =
<i>here</i>; we discuss extensions to the <i>standard</i> here. And the sta=
ndard does not talk about any of this. This is not the place for this discu=
ssion.<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;m=
argin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br></di=
v><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Now that I got used to the acrony=
m, do you really want to change it?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Similar=
ly to changing habits of not using raw pointers and using "smart" pointers =
instead.</div><div><br></div><div> </div>On Friday, 16 November 2012 0=
2:03:40 UTC, josedaniel.garcia wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty=
le=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1e=
x">As Nevin pointed out RAII is not a term defined by the standard.<div><br=
></div><div>And by the way. </div><div><br></div><div>This is a joke. =
Isn't it? Now that I got used to the acronym, do you really want to change =
it?</div>
<div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=
=C3=A1clav Zeman <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a>vhai...@gmail.com</a>></span> =
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dne =C3=BAter=C3=BD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky na=
psal(a):<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">[...]<div><br> If so how wo=
uld you feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as a<br>
CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor<br> Release=
s, and on top of that is actually within the definition of this<br> word (w=
ith slight changes to some of the wording):<br></div></blockquote><div>
Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting using SBRM i=
nstead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Management.<span><font=
color=3D"#888888"><br><br>-- <br>VZ<br><br></font></span></div>
<span><font color=3D"#888888">
-- <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <b=
r>Prof. J. Daniel Garcia<br>Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Unive=
rsidad<br>Computer Architecture Group<br>University Carlos III of Madrid<br=
>
Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22<br>28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain<br>Tel=
: +34 918561316<br>Fax: +34 91 856 1270<br>e-mail: <a>josedani...@uc3m.es</=
a><br>Web: <a href=3D"http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel" target=3D"_bla=
nk">http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel</a><br>
<br>Linked-In: <a href=3D"http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia</a><br>Twitter:&nbs=
p;<a href=3D"http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m" target=3D"_blank">http://=
www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquo=
te></div></blockquote>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
------=_Part_948_21764335.1353308748559--
.
Author: Rob Meijer <pibara@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 08:19:28 +0100
Raw View
--14dae9cfcbee18b49104ced3f0eb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
2012/11/15 V=E1clav Zeman <vhaisman@gmail.com>
> Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky napsal=
(a):
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> If so how would you feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as a
>> CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor
>> Releases, and on top of that is actually within the definition of this
>> word (with slight changes to some of the wording):
>>
> Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting using SBRM
> instead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Management.
>
>
Scope bound !=3D RAII
RAII has two essential properties:
1) It makes resource management scope bound.
2) It makes 'being a resource' non-transitive to composition.
There are alternatives to RAII with respect to scope bound resource
management. Its what RAII does for the compositional transitivity of 'being
a resource' however that IMHO makes RAII stand out high above other
resource management facilities.
--=20
--14dae9cfcbee18b49104ced3f0eb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2012/11/1=
5 V=E1clav Zeman <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:vhaisman@gmail.com=
" target=3D"_blank">vhaisman@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex">
Dne =FAter=FD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky napsal(a=
):<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">[...]<div class=3D"im"><br> If so=
how would you feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII as a<br>
CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor<br> Release=
s, and on top of that is actually within the definition of this<br> word (w=
ith slight changes to some of the wording):<br></div></blockquote><div>
Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting using SBRM i=
nstead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource Management.<span class=
=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br><br></font></span></div></blockquot=
e>
<div><br></div><div>Scope bound !=3D RAII</div><div><br></div><div>RAII has=
two=A0essential=A0properties:</div><div><br></div><div>1) It makes resourc=
e management scope bound.</div><div>2) It makes 'being a resource' =
non-transitive to composition.</div>
<div><br></div><div>There are alternatives to RAII with respect to scope bo=
und resource management. Its what RAII does for the compositional transitiv=
ity of 'being a resource' however that IMHO makes RAII stand out hi=
gh above other resource management facilities.=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
--14dae9cfcbee18b49104ced3f0eb--
.
Author: Rob Meijer <pibara@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 08:40:21 +0100
Raw View
--20cf307f3a60ca36c504ced43a5f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
2012/11/16 Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com>
> Jose
>
> Please note that there are people who are just about to start learning C++
> and it's for their benefits we should make the language easier. Those who
> know C++ already don't need to even think before using this technique. They
> know it and they use it. I get it. It is for people who don't know C++ and
> then you try to explain them RAII. It took me a while before I understood
> the meaning of "unfolded" so to speak mnemonic. Resource aquisition is
> initialization? What does it mean?!! Is this english?
> So no, it's not a joke. Why?
> a) actually means something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a
> group of [functions] having some unifying relationship"
> b) actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning that *C*onstructor *A
> *cquires, *D*estructor *R**e*leases
> c) it is actual word
>
> I think that instead of concentrating on what we know already, we should
> concentrate of future and future of C++ - make it as easy to learn and use
> as possible. RAII is a silly, meaningless acronym, CADRe is not.
>
The problem with people who are just about to start learning C++ and RAII
doesn't lie in the name so much as it lies in the way we tend to still
teach C++ as 'the better C', what I think is the wrong path.
When learning C++ myself, I went to novices training that exposed me to
beginner subjects, 'including' new and delete, but excluding RAII. I only
stumbled upon RAII many years later after having gone trough many C style
resource management issues in much of my C++ code, having cursed the day
that C++ was conceived many a time in the process as a result. Well those
were the old days, C++ teaching should have gotten better right? Well,
seems it isn't. Looking at people coming back from C++ training's for
novices still come back armed with new and delete but without having been
taught about RAII. New prints of C++ books by venerable authors still have
RAII in the advanced sections of their books, often 'after' templates.
So, yes there is a major problem with the lack of use of RAII by novice C++
developers, but no, the name isn't the main problem. Rather than trying to
fix the name (in a place where it apparently isn't even mentioned), the
thing that would be needed would be that we should somehow try to teach the
teachers that RAII should be less of an 'advanced' subject than new/delete.
That is, teachers and C++ book writers should teach about resource
management first, and about the heap second.
--
--20cf307f3a60ca36c504ced43a5f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2012/11/1=
6 Arthur Tchaikovsky <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:atch.cpp@gmail=
..com" target=3D"_blank">atch.cpp@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px=
;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1e=
x">
<div>Jose<br></div><div><br></div><div>Please note that there are people wh=
o are just about to start learning C++ and it's for their benefits we s=
hould make the language easier. Those who know C++ already don't need t=
o even think before using this technique. They know it and they use it. I g=
et it. It is for people who don't know C++ and then you try to explain =
them RAII. It took me a while before I understood the meaning of "unfo=
lded" so to speak mnemonic. Resource aquisition is initialization? Wha=
t does it mean?!! Is this english?=A0</div>
<div>So no, it's not a joke. Why?</div><div>a) actually means something=
"a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a group of [functions] having=
some unifying relationship"</div><div>b) actually does what it says =
=A0- cooperates, meaning that <strong>C</strong>onstructor <strong>A</stron=
g>cquires, <strong>D</strong>estructor <strong>R</strong><strong>e</strong>=
leases</div>
<div>c) it is actual word</div><div><br></div><div>I think that instead of =
concentrating on what we know already, we should concentrate of future and =
future of C++ - make it as easy to learn and use as possible. RAII is a sil=
ly, meaningless acronym, CADRe is not.</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The problem with=A0people who are just abo=
ut to start learning C++ and RAII doesn't lie in the name so much as it=
lies in the way we tend to still teach C++ as 'the better C', what=
I think is the wrong path.=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>When learning C++ myself, I went to novices training th=
at exposed me to beginner subjects, 'including' new and delete, but=
excluding RAII. I only stumbled upon RAII many years later after having go=
ne trough many C style resource management issues in much of my C++ code, h=
aving cursed the day that C++ was conceived many a time in the process as a=
result. Well those were the old days, C++ teaching should have gotten bett=
er right? Well, seems it isn't. Looking at people=A0coming=A0back from =
C++=A0training's=A0for novices still come back armed with new and delet=
e but without having been taught about RAII. New prints of C++ books by ven=
erable authors still have RAII in the advanced sections of their books, oft=
en 'after' templates.=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>So, yes there is a major problem with the lack of use o=
f RAII by novice C++ developers, but no, the name isn't the main proble=
m. Rather than trying to fix the name (in a place where it=A0apparently=A0i=
sn't even mentioned), the thing that would be needed would be that we s=
hould somehow try to teach the teachers that RAII should be less of an '=
;advanced' subject than new/delete. That is, teachers and C++ book writ=
ers should teach about resource management first, and about the heap second=
..</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
--20cf307f3a60ca36c504ced43a5f--
.
Author: Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@googlers.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 03:15:10 -0800
Raw View
I'll re-iterate Nevin's point: this thread is pointless. "RAII"
doesn't appear in the standard, it's not likely to ever appear in the
standard, and you haven't even bothered to propose that the standard
change. Please try to keep discussions on the list's topic,
"discussion about proposed extensions to the ISO C++ language and
standard library."
(https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/?fromgroups#!aboutgroup/std-p=
roposals)
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com> w=
rote:
> Micha=C5=82
>
> Would you mind and watch your language? You're not at your mother's, so
> please at least pretend that you have some basic manners. Or am I to
> understand that we are to use any language we like from now on?
>
>
> On Sunday, 18 November 2012 18:36:10 UTC, Micha=C5=82 Dominiak wrote:
>>
>> His point (1) is that changing widely used term to some unknown to anyon=
e
>> (2) term is pointless.
>>
>> That mail of yours pretty much proved that this proposal makes completel=
y
>> no sense. And standardizing the term for the technique is pretty idiotic=
..
>>
>> On Sunday, 18 November 2012 14:05:42 UTC+1, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd never heard of "CADRe=
"
>>>> before
>>>
>>> Two things:
>>> a) and your point is?
>>> b) you've never heard of it because it is my idea and it is me who post=
ed
>>> it here for the first time in public.
>>>
>>> On Saturday, 17 November 2012 16:33:14 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:05:04 AM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How is that not English?
>>>>>
>>>>> RAII? what word is that? is this english? CADRE is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your "is that English" remark was clearly directed at "Resource
>>>> acquisition is initialization." Let's not pretend like you were talkin=
g
>>>> about the acronym here.
>>>>
>>>> In any case, there are plenty of acronyms that aren't English words.
>>>> RSA, JSON, XML, HTML, etc. That hasn't stopped people from using them.
>>>>
>>>> I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd never heard of "CADRe=
"
>>>> before. There are C++ books that already exist, promoting the use of R=
AII
>>>> and have done so for near on a decade now.
>>>>
>>>> Why should they be rewritten just to call it something else? This is t=
he
>>>> ultimate bikeshed issue: it will have a negligible effect on anything,=
it
>>>> will only create vast confusion between people who use the established=
name
>>>> and people who don't.
>>>>
>>>> RAII won; it got there first and it's in wide-spread use. Let it go
>>>> already. You don't rename a term in wide usage just because you feel i=
t
>>>> might be a bit better at describing what that functionality does.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, 16 November 2012 17:17:32 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:56:46 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jose
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please note that there are people who are just about to start
>>>>>>> learning C++ and it's for their benefits we should make the languag=
e easier.
>>>>>>> Those who know C++ already don't need to even think before using th=
is
>>>>>>> technique. They know it and they use it. I get it. It is for people=
who
>>>>>>> don't know C++ and then you try to explain them RAII. It took me a =
while
>>>>>>> before I understood the meaning of "unfolded" so to speak mnemonic.=
Resource
>>>>>>> aquisition is initialization? What does it mean?!! Is this english?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How is that not English? All of those are well-defined English words=
,
>>>>>> fitting into a proper English sentence according to English rules of=
grammar
>>>>>> (subject-verb-object).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So no, it's not a joke. Why?
>>>>>>> a) actually means something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly :=
a
>>>>>>> group of [functions] having some unifying relationship"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not according to Dictionary.com. Or Wiktionary. The primary definiti=
on
>>>>>> of cadre is about military matters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> b) actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning that Construct=
or
>>>>>>> Acquires, Destructor Releases
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Acquires and releases what? At least RAII talks about resources.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> c) it is actual word
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that instead of concentrating on what we know already, we
>>>>>>> should concentrate of future and future of C++ - make it as easy to=
learn
>>>>>>> and use as possible. RAII is a silly, meaningless acronym, CADRe is=
not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The thing you keep missing in this discussion is where you are. This
>>>>>> is a discussion group for the Standard for Programming Language C++.=
This
>>>>>> standard does not teach RAII. It does not tell the reader how to use=
RAII.
>>>>>> It never mentions RAII.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're suggesting that a document (the standard) be modified to chan=
ge
>>>>>> terminology it never uses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to bikeshed CARDe vs. RAII vs. something else, fine. Jus=
t
>>>>>> don't do it here; we discuss extensions to the standard here. And th=
e
>>>>>> standard does not talk about any of this. This is not the place for =
this
>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now that I got used to the acronym, do you really want to change i=
t?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Similarly to changing habits of not using raw pointers and using
>>>>>>> "smart" pointers instead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Friday, 16 November 2012 02:03:40 UTC, josedaniel.garcia wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As Nevin pointed out RAII is not a term defined by the standard.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And by the way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a joke. Isn't it? Now that I got used to the acronym, do y=
ou
>>>>>>>> really want to change it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=C3=A1clav Zeman <vhai...@gmail.=
com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dne =C3=BAter=C3=BD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tcha=
ikovsky
>>>>>>>>> napsal(a):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If so how would you feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RAII
>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>> CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor
>>>>>>>>>> Releases, and on top of that is actually within the definition o=
f
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> word (with slight changes to some of the wording):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting
>>>>>>>>> using SBRM instead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resource =
Management.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> VZ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Prof. J. Daniel Garcia
>>>>>>>> Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Universidad
>>>>>>>> Computer Architecture Group
>>>>>>>> University Carlos III of Madrid
>>>>>>>> Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22
>>>>>>>> 28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain
>>>>>>>> Tel: +34 918561316
>>>>>>>> Fax: +34 91 856 1270
>>>>>>>> e-mail: josedani...@uc3m.es
>>>>>>>> Web: http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Linked-In: http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia
>>>>>>>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m
>
> --
>
>
>
--=20
.
Author: Rob Meijer <pibara@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:00:23 +0100
Raw View
--bcaec54b46c4c6550304ced7dc16
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
2012/11/19 Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@googlers.com>
> I'll re-iterate Nevin's point: this thread is pointless. "RAII"
> doesn't appear in the standard, it's not likely to ever appear in the
> standard, and you haven't even bothered to propose that the standard
> change. Please try to keep discussions on the list's topic,
> "discussion about proposed extensions to the ISO C++ language and
> standard library."
> (
> https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/?fromgroups#!aboutgroup/std-proposals
> )
>
>
This raises an interesting question whether RAII as a concept
should appear in the standard.
Given the existence of the "Pointer safety" section, it seems rather odd
that garbage collecting
as form of resource management is now mentioned in the standard, while the
for C++ development
arguably much more important RAII idiom is not.
From this, it would seem reasonable that, probably right after "stack
unwinding" is defined, RAII
could have a similar definition to somewhat balance the fact that GC does
appear in the standard.
--
--bcaec54b46c4c6550304ced7dc16
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2012/11/1=
9 Jeffrey Yasskin <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:jyasskin@googlers=
..com" target=3D"_blank">jyasskin@googlers.com</a>></span><br><blockquote=
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:=
1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left=
:1ex">
I'll re-iterate Nevin's point: this thread is pointless. "RAII=
"<br>
doesn't appear in the standard, it's not likely to ever appear in t=
he<br>
standard, and you haven't even bothered to propose that the standard<br=
>
change. Please try to keep discussions on the list's topic,<br>
"discussion about proposed extensions to the ISO C++ language and<br>
standard library."<br>
(<a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/?fromgroups#!about=
group/std-proposals" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.o=
rg/forum/?fromgroups#!aboutgroup/std-proposals</a>)<br>
<div><div class=3D"h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thi=
s raises an interesting question=A0whether=A0RAII as a concept should=A0app=
ear=A0in the standard.</div><div>Given the existence of the "Pointer s=
afety" section, it seems rather odd that garbage collecting=A0</div>
<div>as form of resource management=A0is now mentioned in the standard, whi=
le the for C++ development=A0</div><div>arguably much more=A0important RAII=
idiom is not.</div><div><br></div><div>From this, it would seem reasonable=
that, probably right after "stack unwinding" is defined, RAII</d=
iv>
<div>could have a similar definition to somewhat balance the fact that GC d=
oes appear in the standard.</div></div></div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
--bcaec54b46c4c6550304ced7dc16--
.
Author: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Daniel_Kr=FCgler?= <daniel.kruegler@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:20:08 +0100
Raw View
--20cf307f343e69865c04ced82364
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
2012/11/19 Rob Meijer <pibara@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> 2012/11/19 Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@googlers.com>
>
>> I'll re-iterate Nevin's point: this thread is pointless. "RAII"
>> doesn't appear in the standard, it's not likely to ever appear in the
>> standard, and you haven't even bothered to propose that the standard
>> change. Please try to keep discussions on the list's topic,
>> "discussion about proposed extensions to the ISO C++ language and
>> standard library."
>> (
>> https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/?fromgroups#!aboutgroup/std-proposals
>> )
>>
>>
> This raises an interesting question whether RAII as a concept
> should appear in the standard.
>
Could you point out in which sense such a definition would fix a defect or
would improve
semantic specification of the current wording? The standard does not define
any concepts and does
not specify definitions, if those wouldn't be really used by the standard.
At the moment I'm failing to
see what kind of problem would be resolved by adding such a definition.
> Given the existence of the "Pointer safety" section, it seems rather odd
> that garbage collecting
> as form of resource management is now mentioned in the standard, while the
> for C++ development
> arguably much more important RAII idiom is not.
>
Well, the pointer-safety specification is needed to make it possible to
integrate something like garbage collection
within a C++ implementation. Note that the Standard does not even name the
term "garbage collection" in normative
wording. The "pointer safety" sub-clause just adds the minimum necessary to
make such an integration possible,
because some user-contract is necessary for this.
> From this, it would seem reasonable that, probably right after "stack
> unwinding" is defined, RAII
> could have a similar definition to somewhat balance the fact that GC does
> appear in the standard.
>
There is no definition of GC in the standard (and is not needed). The term
"stack unwinding" exists, because the standard refers to it in a normative
way.
I don't see why there needs to be a definition of RAII.
- Daniel
--
--20cf307f343e69865c04ced82364
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">2012/11/19 Rob Meijer <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:pibara@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">pibara@gmail.com</a>><=
/span><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bord=
er-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div clas=
s=3D"im">2012/11/19 Jeffrey Yasskin <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto=
:jyasskin@googlers.com" target=3D"_blank">jyasskin@googlers.com</a>></sp=
an><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;=
border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:=
solid;padding-left:1ex">
I'll re-iterate Nevin's point: this thread is pointless. "RAII=
"<br>
doesn't appear in the standard, it's not likely to ever appear in t=
he<br>
standard, and you haven't even bothered to propose that the standard<br=
>
change. Please try to keep discussions on the list's topic,<br>
"discussion about proposed extensions to the ISO C++ language and<br>
standard library."<br>
(<a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/?fromgroups#!about=
group/std-proposals" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.o=
rg/forum/?fromgroups#!aboutgroup/std-proposals</a>)<br>
<div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>This raise=
s an interesting question=A0whether=A0RAII as a concept should=A0appear=A0i=
n the standard.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Could you point out =
in which sense such a definition would fix a defect or would improve<br>
semantic specification of the current wording? The standard does not define=
any concepts and does<br>not specify definitions, if those wouldn't be=
really used by the standard. At the moment I'm failing to<br>see what =
kind of problem would be resolved by adding such a definition.<br>
=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;borde=
r-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote"><div>Given the existence of the "Pointer safety&quo=
t; section, it seems rather odd that garbage collecting=A0</div>
<div>as form of resource management=A0is now mentioned in the standard, whi=
le the for C++ development=A0</div><div>arguably much more=A0important RAII=
idiom is not.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Well, the pointer-saf=
ety specification is needed to make it possible to integrate something like=
garbage collection<br>
within a C++ implementation. Note that the Standard does not even name the =
term "garbage collection" in normative<br>wording. The "poin=
ter safety" sub-clause just adds the minimum necessary to make such an=
integration possible,<br>
because some user-contract is necessary for this.<br>=A0</div><blockquote c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;=
padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><di=
v></div>
<div>From this, it would seem reasonable that, probably right after "s=
tack unwinding" is defined, RAII</div>
<div>could have a similar definition to somewhat balance the fact that GC d=
oes appear in the standard.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>There is=
no definition of GC in the standard (and is not needed). The term "st=
ack unwinding" exists, because the standard refers to it in a normativ=
e way. <br>
<br>I don't see why there needs to be a definition of RAII.<br><br>- Da=
niel<br><br></div></div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
--20cf307f343e69865c04ced82364--
.
Author: "J. Daniel Garcia" <josedaniel.garcia@uc3m.es>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:08:15 -0600
Raw View
--f46d0401f95bff043d04ceda7e24
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+1
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@googlers.com>wro=
te:
> I'll re-iterate Nevin's point: this thread is pointless. "RAII"
> doesn't appear in the standard, it's not likely to ever appear in the
> standard, and you haven't even bothered to propose that the standard
> change. Please try to keep discussions on the list's topic,
> "discussion about proposed extensions to the ISO C++ language and
> standard library."
> (
> https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/?fromgroups#!aboutgroup/std-=
proposals
> )
>
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Micha=C5=82
> >
> > Would you mind and watch your language? You're not at your mother's, so
> > please at least pretend that you have some basic manners. Or am I to
> > understand that we are to use any language we like from now on?
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, 18 November 2012 18:36:10 UTC, Micha=C5=82 Dominiak wrote:
> >>
> >> His point (1) is that changing widely used term to some unknown to
> anyone
> >> (2) term is pointless.
> >>
> >> That mail of yours pretty much proved that this proposal makes
> completely
> >> no sense. And standardizing the term for the technique is pretty
> idiotic.
> >>
> >> On Sunday, 18 November 2012 14:05:42 UTC+1, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd never heard of
> "CADRe"
> >>>> before
> >>>
> >>> Two things:
> >>> a) and your point is?
> >>> b) you've never heard of it because it is my idea and it is me who
> posted
> >>> it here for the first time in public.
> >>>
> >>> On Saturday, 17 November 2012 16:33:14 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:05:04 AM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How is that not English?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> RAII? what word is that? is this english? CADRE is.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Your "is that English" remark was clearly directed at "Resource
> >>>> acquisition is initialization." Let's not pretend like you were
> talking
> >>>> about the acronym here.
> >>>>
> >>>> In any case, there are plenty of acronyms that aren't English words.
> >>>> RSA, JSON, XML, HTML, etc. That hasn't stopped people from using the=
m.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd never heard of
> "CADRe"
> >>>> before. There are C++ books that already exist, promoting the use of
> RAII
> >>>> and have done so for near on a decade now.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why should they be rewritten just to call it something else? This is
> the
> >>>> ultimate bikeshed issue: it will have a negligible effect on
> anything, it
> >>>> will only create vast confusion between people who use the
> established name
> >>>> and people who don't.
> >>>>
> >>>> RAII won; it got there first and it's in wide-spread use. Let it go
> >>>> already. You don't rename a term in wide usage just because you feel
> it
> >>>> might be a bit better at describing what that functionality does.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Friday, 16 November 2012 17:17:32 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:56:46 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovs=
ky
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jose
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Please note that there are people who are just about to start
> >>>>>>> learning C++ and it's for their benefits we should make the
> language easier.
> >>>>>>> Those who know C++ already don't need to even think before using
> this
> >>>>>>> technique. They know it and they use it. I get it. It is for
> people who
> >>>>>>> don't know C++ and then you try to explain them RAII. It took me =
a
> while
> >>>>>>> before I understood the meaning of "unfolded" so to speak
> mnemonic. Resource
> >>>>>>> aquisition is initialization? What does it mean?!! Is this englis=
h?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How is that not English? All of those are well-defined English
> words,
> >>>>>> fitting into a proper English sentence according to English rules
> of grammar
> >>>>>> (subject-verb-object).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So no, it's not a joke. Why?
> >>>>>>> a) actually means something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly
> : a
> >>>>>>> group of [functions] having some unifying relationship"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not according to Dictionary.com. Or Wiktionary. The primary
> definition
> >>>>>> of cadre is about military matters.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> b) actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning that
> Constructor
> >>>>>>> Acquires, Destructor Releases
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Acquires and releases what? At least RAII talks about resources.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> c) it is actual word
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think that instead of concentrating on what we know already, we
> >>>>>>> should concentrate of future and future of C++ - make it as easy
> to learn
> >>>>>>> and use as possible. RAII is a silly, meaningless acronym, CADRe
> is not.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The thing you keep missing in this discussion is where you are. Th=
is
> >>>>>> is a discussion group for the Standard for Programming Language
> C++. This
> >>>>>> standard does not teach RAII. It does not tell the reader how to
> use RAII.
> >>>>>> It never mentions RAII.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You're suggesting that a document (the standard) be modified to
> change
> >>>>>> terminology it never uses.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you want to bikeshed CARDe vs. RAII vs. something else, fine.
> Just
> >>>>>> don't do it here; we discuss extensions to the standard here. And
> the
> >>>>>> standard does not talk about any of this. This is not the place fo=
r
> this
> >>>>>> discussion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Now that I got used to the acronym, do you really want to change
> it?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Similarly to changing habits of not using raw pointers and using
> >>>>>>> "smart" pointers instead.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Friday, 16 November 2012 02:03:40 UTC, josedaniel.garcia wrote=
:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As Nevin pointed out RAII is not a term defined by the standard.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And by the way.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is a joke. Isn't it? Now that I got used to the acronym, do
> you
> >>>>>>>> really want to change it?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=C3=A1clav Zeman <vhai...@gmai=
l.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dne =C3=BAter=C3=BD, 6. listopadu 2012 14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tc=
haikovsky
> >>>>>>>>> napsal(a):
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If so how would you feel about trying to rename/reintroduce RA=
II
> >>>>>>>>>> as a
> >>>>>>>>>> CADRe which simply unfolds to: Constructor Acquires Destructor
> >>>>>>>>>> Releases, and on top of that is actually within the definition
> of
> >>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>> word (with slight changes to some of the wording):
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode channel have been suggesting
> >>>>>>>>> using SBRM instead of RAII. SBRM stands for Scope Bound Resourc=
e
> Management.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> VZ
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Prof. J. Daniel Garcia
> >>>>>>>> Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Universidad
> >>>>>>>> Computer Architecture Group
> >>>>>>>> University Carlos III of Madrid
> >>>>>>>> Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22
> >>>>>>>> 28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain
> >>>>>>>> Tel: +34 918561316
> >>>>>>>> Fax: +34 91 856 1270
> >>>>>>>> e-mail: josedani...@uc3m.es
> >>>>>>>> Web: http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Linked-In: http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia
> >>>>>>>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
>
>
>
--=20
Prof. J. Daniel Garcia
Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Universidad
Computer Architecture Group
University Carlos III of Madrid
Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22
28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain
Tel: +34 918561316
Fax: +34 91 856 1270
e-mail: josedaniel.garcia@uc3m.es
Web: http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel
Linked-In: http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m
--=20
--f46d0401f95bff043d04ceda7e24
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+1<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov=
19, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mail=
to:jyasskin@googlers.com" target=3D"_blank">jyasskin@googlers.com</a>></=
span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I'll re-iterate Nevin's point: this =
thread is pointless. "RAII"<br>
doesn't appear in the standard, it's not likely to ever appear in t=
he<br>
standard, and you haven't even bothered to propose that the standard<br=
>
change. Please try to keep discussions on the list's topic,<br>
"discussion about proposed extensions to the ISO C++ language and<br>
standard library."<br>
(<a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/?fromgroups#!about=
group/std-proposals" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.o=
rg/forum/?fromgroups#!aboutgroup/std-proposals</a>)<br>
<div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Arthur Tchaikovsky <<a href=3D"mailto:=
atch.cpp@gmail.com">atch.cpp@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Micha=C5=82<br>
><br>
> Would you mind and watch your language? You're not at your mother&=
#39;s, so<br>
> please at least pretend that you have some basic manners. Or am I to<b=
r>
> understand that we are to use any language we like from now on?<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sunday, 18 November 2012 18:36:10 UTC, Micha=C5=82 Dominiak wrote:<=
br>
>><br>
>> His point (1) is that changing widely used term to some unknown to=
anyone<br>
>> (2) term is pointless.<br>
>><br>
>> That mail of yours pretty much proved that this proposal makes com=
pletely<br>
>> no sense. And standardizing the term for the technique is pretty i=
diotic.<br>
>><br>
>> On Sunday, 18 November 2012 14:05:42 UTC+1, Arthur Tchaikovsky wro=
te:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd never=
heard of "CADRe"<br>
>>>> before<br>
>>><br>
>>> Two things:<br>
>>> a) and your point is?<br>
>>> b) you've never heard of it because it is my idea and it i=
s me who posted<br>
>>> it here for the first time in public.<br>
>>><br>
>>> On Saturday, 17 November 2012 16:33:14 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:=
<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:05:04 AM UTC-8, Arthur Tc=
haikovsky<br>
>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> How is that not English?<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> RAII? what word is that? is this english? CADRE is.<br=
>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Your "is that English" remark was clearly direct=
ed at "Resource<br>
>>>> acquisition is initialization." Let's not pretend=
like you were talking<br>
>>>> about the acronym here.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> In any case, there are plenty of acronyms that aren't =
English words.<br>
>>>> RSA, JSON, XML, HTML, etc. That hasn't stopped people =
from using them.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I have heard alternative names for RAII, but I'd never=
heard of "CADRe"<br>
>>>> before. There are C++ books that already exist, promoting =
the use of RAII<br>
>>>> and have done so for near on a decade now.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Why should they be rewritten just to call it something els=
e? This is the<br>
>>>> ultimate bikeshed issue: it will have a negligible effect =
on anything, it<br>
>>>> will only create vast confusion between people who use the=
established name<br>
>>>> and people who don't.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> RAII won; it got there first and it's in wide-spread u=
se. Let it go<br>
>>>> already. You don't rename a term in wide usage just be=
cause you feel it<br>
>>>> might be a bit better at describing what that functionalit=
y does.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On Friday, 16 November 2012 17:17:32 UTC, Nicol Bolas =
wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:56:46 PM UTC-8, =
Arthur Tchaikovsky<br>
>>>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Jose<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Please note that there are people who are just=
about to start<br>
>>>>>>> learning C++ and it's for their benefits w=
e should make the language easier.<br>
>>>>>>> Those who know C++ already don't need to e=
ven think before using this<br>
>>>>>>> technique. They know it and they use it. I get=
it. It is for people who<br>
>>>>>>> don't know C++ and then you try to explain=
them RAII. It took me a while<br>
>>>>>>> before I understood the meaning of "unfol=
ded" so to speak mnemonic. Resource<br>
>>>>>>> aquisition is initialization? What does it mea=
n?!! Is this english?<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> How is that not English? All of those are well-def=
ined English words,<br>
>>>>>> fitting into a proper English sentence according t=
o English rules of grammar<br>
>>>>>> (subject-verb-object).<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> So no, it's not a joke. Why?<br>
>>>>>>> a) actually means something "a nucleus or=
core group ...; broadly : a<br>
>>>>>>> group of [functions] having some unifying rela=
tionship"<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Not according to Dictionary.com. Or Wiktionary. Th=
e primary definition<br>
>>>>>> of cadre is about military matters.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> b) actually does what it says =C2=A0- cooperat=
es, meaning that Constructor<br>
>>>>>>> Acquires, Destructor Releases<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Acquires and releases what? At least RAII talks ab=
out resources.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> c) it is actual word<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> I think that instead of concentrating on what =
we know already, we<br>
>>>>>>> should concentrate of future and future of C++=
- make it as easy to learn<br>
>>>>>>> and use as possible. RAII is a silly, meaningl=
ess acronym, CADRe is not.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> The thing you keep missing in this discussion is w=
here you are. This<br>
>>>>>> is a discussion group for the Standard for Program=
ming Language C++. This<br>
>>>>>> standard does not teach RAII. It does not tell the=
reader how to use RAII.<br>
>>>>>> It never mentions RAII.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> You're suggesting that a document (the standar=
d) be modified to change<br>
>>>>>> terminology it never uses.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> If you want to bikeshed CARDe vs. RAII vs. somethi=
ng else, fine. Just<br>
>>>>>> don't do it here; we discuss extensions to the=
standard here. And the<br>
>>>>>> standard does not talk about any of this. This is =
not the place for this<br>
>>>>>> discussion.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> Now that I got used to the acronym, do you=
really want to change it?<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Similarly to changing habits of not using raw =
pointers and using<br>
>>>>>>> "smart" pointers instead.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> On Friday, 16 November 2012 02:03:40 UTC, jose=
daniel.garcia wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> As Nevin pointed out RAII is not a term de=
fined by the standard.<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> And by the way.<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> This is a joke. Isn't it? Now that I g=
ot used to the acronym, do you<br>
>>>>>>>> really want to change it?<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, V=C3=A1cl=
av Zeman <<a href=3D"mailto:vhai...@gmail.com">vhai...@gmail.com</a>>=
<br>
>>>>>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> Dne =C3=BAter=C3=BD, 6. listopadu 2012=
14:51:10 UTC+1 Arthur Tchaikovsky<br>
>>>>>>>>> napsal(a):<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> [...]<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> If so how would you feel about try=
ing to rename/reintroduce RAII<br>
>>>>>>>>>> as a<br>
>>>>>>>>>> CADRe which simply unfolds to: Con=
structor Acquires Destructor<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Releases, and on top of that is ac=
tually within the definition of<br>
>>>>>>>>>> this<br>
>>>>>>>>>> word (with slight changes to some =
of the wording):<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> Many people in the ##C++@FreeNode chan=
nel have been suggesting<br>
>>>>>>>>> using SBRM instead of RAII. SBRM stand=
s for Scope Bound Resource Management.<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>>>>> VZ<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>>>> Prof. J. Daniel Garcia<br>
>>>>>>>> Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de =
Universidad<br>
>>>>>>>> Computer Architecture Group<br>
>>>>>>>> University Carlos III of Madrid<br>
>>>>>>>> Avda. Universidad Carlos III, 22<br>
>>>>>>>> 28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain<br>
>>>>>>>> Tel: <a href=3D"tel:%2B34%20918561316" val=
ue=3D"+34918561316">+34 918561316</a><br>
>>>>>>>> Fax: <a href=3D"tel:%2B34%2091%20856%20127=
0" value=3D"+34918561270">+34 91 856 1270</a><br>
>>>>>>>> e-mail: <a href=3D"mailto:josedani...@uc3m=
..es">josedani...@uc3m.es</a><br>
>>>>>>>> Web: <a href=3D"http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.=
es/~jdaniel" target=3D"_blank">http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel</a><br=
>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> Linked-In: <a href=3D"http://es.linkedin.c=
om/in/jdanielgarcia" target=3D"_blank">http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgar=
cia</a><br>
>>>>>>>> Twitter: <a href=3D"http://www.twitter.com=
/jdgarciauc3m" target=3D"_blank">http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m</a><br=
>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div>--<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Prof. J. Dan=
iel Garcia<br>Associate Professor - Profesor Titular de Universidad<br>Comp=
uter Architecture Group<br>University Carlos III of Madrid<br>Avda. Univers=
idad Carlos III, 22<br>
28270 Colmenarejo, Madrid. Spain<br>Tel: +34 918561316<br>Fax: +34 91 856 1=
270<br>e-mail: <a href=3D"mailto:josedaniel.garcia@uc3m.es" target=3D"_blan=
k">josedaniel.garcia@uc3m.es</a><br>Web: <a href=3D"http://www.arcos.inf.uc=
3m.es/~jdaniel" target=3D"_blank">http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel</a>=
<br>
=C2=A0<br>Linked-In: <a href=3D"http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">http://es.linkedin.com/in/jdanielgarcia</a><br>Twitter:=C2=
=A0<a href=3D"http://www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m" target=3D"_blank">http:/=
/www.twitter.com/jdgarciauc3m</a><br>
</div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
--f46d0401f95bff043d04ceda7e24--
.
Author: rick@longbowgames.com
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 20:36:56 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_226_9171606.1353386216975
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:56:46 AM UTC-5, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:
>
> a) actually means something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a
> group of [functions] having some unifying relationship"
A group of functions having some unifying relationship is the perfect
description of a class. Besides which, Oxford's latest example of the word
'cadre' being used in the sense of 'framework' dates to 1868. Nowadays it's
used to refer to a small group of highly trained people working in harmony,
particularly if they're military and/or underhanded/revolutionary. Even if
you ignore the negative implications of the word, it sounds more like it
has something to do with parallel processing.
b) actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning that *C*onstructor *A*cquires,
> *D*estructor *R**e*leases
>
RAII does exactly what it says too: allocating resources is the same as
initializing them. I remember when this term was new to me, and it clicked
with me as soon as I read it. Maybe this is because I already had a lot of
experience in treating resource allocation and resource initialization
separately, but that's not exactly an uncommon approach.
> c) it is actual word
>
Are you sure that's a good thing? Try searching Google for RAII. If there's
a good chance that people don't know what your term means, it's awfully
useful if that term is unique.
--
------=_Part_226_9171606.1353386216975
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:56:46 AM UTC-5, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:<bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border=
-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">a) actually means something "a nu=
cleus or core group ...; broadly : a group of [functions] having some unify=
ing relationship"</blockquote><div> </div><div>A group of functions ha=
ving some unifying relationship is the perfect description of a class. Besi=
des which, Oxford's latest example of the word 'cadre' being used in the se=
nse of 'framework' dates to 1868. Nowadays it's used to refer to a small gr=
oup of highly trained people working in harmony, particularly if they're mi=
litary and/or underhanded/revolutionary.<span class=3D"noIndent" id=3D"eid1=
0918887"></span> Even if you ignore the negative implications of the word, =
it sounds more like it has something to do with parallel processing.<br><br=
></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.=
8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div>b) actually does w=
hat it says - cooperates, meaning that <b>C</b>onstructor <b>A</b>cqu=
ires, <b>D</b>estructor <b>R</b><b>e</b>leases</div></blockquote><div><br>R=
AII does exactly what it says too: allocating resources is the same as init=
ializing them. I remember when this term was new to me, and it clicked with=
me as soon as I read it. Maybe this is because I already had a lot of expe=
rience in treating resource allocation and resource initialization separate=
ly, but that's not exactly an uncommon approach.<br> </div><blockquote=
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1=
px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div>c) it is actual word</div></blockquo=
te><div><br>Are you sure that's a good thing? Try searching Google for RAII=
.. If there's a good chance that people don't know what your term means, it'=
s awfully useful if that term is unique.<br></div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
------=_Part_226_9171606.1353386216975--
.
Author: Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 02:17:17 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_785_24697548.1353406637420
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> RAII does exactly what it says too
No, RAII talks only about the init part, not about releasing resources.
CADRe describes whole process in a nutshell.
On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 04:36:57 UTC, ri...@longbowgames.com wrote:
>
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:56:46 AM UTC-5, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:
>>
>> a) actually means something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a
>> group of [functions] having some unifying relationship"
>
>
> A group of functions having some unifying relationship is the perfect
> description of a class. Besides which, Oxford's latest example of the word
> 'cadre' being used in the sense of 'framework' dates to 1868. Nowadays it's
> used to refer to a small group of highly trained people working in harmony,
> particularly if they're military and/or underhanded/revolutionary. Even if
> you ignore the negative implications of the word, it sounds more like it
> has something to do with parallel processing.
>
> b) actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning that *C*onstructor *A
>> *cquires, *D*estructor *R**e*leases
>>
>
> RAII does exactly what it says too: allocating resources is the same as
> initializing them. I remember when this term was new to me, and it clicked
> with me as soon as I read it. Maybe this is because I already had a lot of
> experience in treating resource allocation and resource initialization
> separately, but that's not exactly an uncommon approach.
>
>
>> c) it is actual word
>>
>
> Are you sure that's a good thing? Try searching Google for RAII. If
> there's a good chance that people don't know what your term means, it's
> awfully useful if that term is unique.
>
--
------=_Part_785_24697548.1353406637420
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;bor=
der-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
RAII does exactly what it says too</blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, RAII=
talks only about the init part, not about releasing resources. CADRe descr=
ibes whole process in a nutshell. </div><br>On Tuesday, 20 November 20=
12 04:36:57 UTC, ri...@longbowgames.com wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_q=
uote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;pad=
ding-left: 1ex;">On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:56:46 AM UTC-5, Arthur Tcha=
ikovsky wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-le=
ft:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">a) actually means som=
ething "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a group of [functions] havin=
g some unifying relationship"</blockquote><div> </div><div>A group of =
functions having some unifying relationship is the perfect description of a=
class. Besides which, Oxford's latest example of the word 'cadre' being us=
ed in the sense of 'framework' dates to 1868. Nowadays it's used to refer t=
o a small group of highly trained people working in harmony, particularly i=
f they're military and/or underhanded/revolutionary. Even if you ignore the=
negative implications of the word, it sounds more like it has something to=
do with parallel processing.<br><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote=
" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-le=
ft:1ex"><div>b) actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning that=
<b>C</b>onstructor <b>A</b>cquires, <b>D</b>estructor <b>R</b><b>e</b>leas=
es</div></blockquote><div><br>RAII does exactly what it says too: allocatin=
g resources is the same as initializing them. I remember when this term was=
new to me, and it clicked with me as soon as I read it. Maybe this is beca=
use I already had a lot of experience in treating resource allocation and r=
esource initialization separately, but that's not exactly an uncommon appro=
ach.<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;mar=
gin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>c) it is a=
ctual word</div></blockquote><div><br>Are you sure that's a good thing? Try=
searching Google for RAII. If there's a good chance that people don't know=
what your term means, it's awfully useful if that term is unique.<br></div=
></blockquote>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
------=_Part_785_24697548.1353406637420--
.
Author: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Dominiak?= <griwes@griwes.info>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:24:13 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_1005_18623093.1353432253821
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Then use it on your own, if you feel you need to. Good luck googling for
it, good luck convincing others to use it, good luck to have to explain
what that whole CADRe is [ Example:
<you> ...you know, CADRe...
<some other guy> what is that whole CADRe?
<you> you know, it's my own name for RAII, also called SBRM by some people
<some other guy> oh, why don't you just call it RAII?
-- end of example ], but it still has nothing to do with standard proposals
or with standard alone. Go talk about it in various C++ communities, but
not on ones related to standardization.
On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 11:17:17 UTC+1, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:
>
> RAII does exactly what it says too
>
>
> No, RAII talks only about the init part, not about releasing resources.
> CADRe describes whole process in a nutshell.
>
> On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 04:36:57 UTC, ri...@longbowgames.com wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:56:46 AM UTC-5, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:
>>>
>>> a) actually means something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a
>>> group of [functions] having some unifying relationship"
>>
>>
>> A group of functions having some unifying relationship is the perfect
>> description of a class. Besides which, Oxford's latest example of the word
>> 'cadre' being used in the sense of 'framework' dates to 1868. Nowadays it's
>> used to refer to a small group of highly trained people working in harmony,
>> particularly if they're military and/or underhanded/revolutionary. Even if
>> you ignore the negative implications of the word, it sounds more like it
>> has something to do with parallel processing.
>>
>> b) actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning that *C*onstructor *
>>> A*cquires, *D*estructor *R**e*leases
>>>
>>
>> RAII does exactly what it says too: allocating resources is the same as
>> initializing them. I remember when this term was new to me, and it clicked
>> with me as soon as I read it. Maybe this is because I already had a lot of
>> experience in treating resource allocation and resource initialization
>> separately, but that's not exactly an uncommon approach.
>>
>>
>>> c) it is actual word
>>>
>>
>> Are you sure that's a good thing? Try searching Google for RAII. If
>> there's a good chance that people don't know what your term means, it's
>> awfully useful if that term is unique.
>>
>
--
------=_Part_1005_18623093.1353432253821
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Then use it on your own, if you feel you need to. Good luck googling for it=
, good luck convincing others to use it, good luck to have to explain what =
that whole CADRe is [ Example:<div><you> ...you know, CADRe...</div><=
div><some other guy> what is that whole CADRe?</div><div><you> =
you know, it's my own name for RAII, also called SBRM by some people</div><=
div><some other guy> oh, why don't you just call it RAII?</div><div>-=
- end of example ], but it still has nothing to do with standard proposals =
or with standard alone. Go talk about it in various C++ communities, but no=
t on ones related to standardization.</div><div><br>On Tuesday, 20 November=
2012 11:17:17 UTC+1, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;pa=
dding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margi=
n-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
RAII does exactly what it says too</blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, RAII=
talks only about the init part, not about releasing resources. CADRe descr=
ibes whole process in a nutshell. </div><br>On Tuesday, 20 November 20=
12 04:36:57 UTC, <a>ri...@longbowgames.com</a> wrote:<blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid=
;padding-left:1ex">On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:56:46 AM UTC-5, Arthur Tc=
haikovsky wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-=
left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">a) actually means s=
omething "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a group of [functions] hav=
ing some unifying relationship"</blockquote><div> </div><div>A group o=
f functions having some unifying relationship is the perfect description of=
a class. Besides which, Oxford's latest example of the word 'cadre' being =
used in the sense of 'framework' dates to 1868. Nowadays it's used to refer=
to a small group of highly trained people working in harmony, particularly=
if they're military and/or underhanded/revolutionary. Even if you ignore t=
he negative implications of the word, it sounds more like it has something =
to do with parallel processing.<br><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-=
left:1ex"><div>b) actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning th=
at <b>C</b>onstructor <b>A</b>cquires, <b>D</b>estructor <b>R</b><b>e</b>le=
ases</div></blockquote><div><br>RAII does exactly what it says too: allocat=
ing resources is the same as initializing them. I remember when this term w=
as new to me, and it clicked with me as soon as I read it. Maybe this is be=
cause I already had a lot of experience in treating resource allocation and=
resource initialization separately, but that's not exactly an uncommon app=
roach.<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;m=
argin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>c) it is=
actual word</div></blockquote><div><br>Are you sure that's a good thing? T=
ry searching Google for RAII. If there's a good chance that people don't kn=
ow what your term means, it's awfully useful if that term is unique.<br></d=
iv></blockquote></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
------=_Part_1005_18623093.1353432253821--
.
Author: Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:56:01 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_159_19829907.1353480961125
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It's not about me or anyone already familiar with C++. It's about making=20
the whole language easier to learn for people who are just about to start.=
=20
SBRM? How is that easier to remember to the CADRe - actual word, which when=
=20
unfolded describes the technique from beginning to the end and one doesn't=
=20
have to think twice in order to understand it? Resource Acquisition Is=20
Initialization? What? What does it mean? On the other hand, Constructor=20
Acquires Destructor Releases makes sense, is easy to remember and as I've=
=20
already said, describes the whole technique from A to Z. RAII? It's=20
horrible.
On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 17:24:14 UTC, Micha=C5=82 Dominiak wrote:
>
> Then use it on your own, if you feel you need to. Good luck googling for=
=20
> it, good luck convincing others to use it, good luck to have to explain=
=20
> what that whole CADRe is [ Example:
> <you> ...you know, CADRe...
> <some other guy> what is that whole CADRe?
> <you> you know, it's my own name for RAII, also called SBRM by some peopl=
e
> <some other guy> oh, why don't you just call it RAII?
> -- end of example ], but it still has nothing to do with standard=20
> proposals or with standard alone. Go talk about it in various C++=20
> communities, but not on ones related to standardization.
>
> On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 11:17:17 UTC+1, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:
>>
>> RAII does exactly what it says too
>>
>>
>> No, RAII talks only about the init part, not about releasing resources.=
=20
>> CADRe describes whole process in a nutshell.=20
>>
>> On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 04:36:57 UTC, ri...@longbowgames.com wrote:
>>>
>>> On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:56:46 AM UTC-5, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote=
:
>>>>
>>>> a) actually means something "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a=
=20
>>>> group of [functions] having some unifying relationship"
>>>
>>> =20
>>> A group of functions having some unifying relationship is the perfect=
=20
>>> description of a class. Besides which, Oxford's latest example of the w=
ord=20
>>> 'cadre' being used in the sense of 'framework' dates to 1868. Nowadays =
it's=20
>>> used to refer to a small group of highly trained people working in harm=
ony,=20
>>> particularly if they're military and/or underhanded/revolutionary. Even=
if=20
>>> you ignore the negative implications of the word, it sounds more like i=
t=20
>>> has something to do with parallel processing.
>>>
>>> b) actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning that *C*onstructor=
=20
>>>> *A*cquires, *D*estructor *R**e*leases
>>>>
>>>
>>> RAII does exactly what it says too: allocating resources is the same as=
=20
>>> initializing them. I remember when this term was new to me, and it clic=
ked=20
>>> with me as soon as I read it. Maybe this is because I already had a lot=
of=20
>>> experience in treating resource allocation and resource initialization=
=20
>>> separately, but that's not exactly an uncommon approach.
>>> =20
>>>
>>>> c) it is actual word
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you sure that's a good thing? Try searching Google for RAII. If=20
>>> there's a good chance that people don't know what your term means, it's=
=20
>>> awfully useful if that term is unique.
>>>
>>
--=20
------=_Part_159_19829907.1353480961125
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It's not about me or anyone already familiar with C++. It's about making th=
e whole language easier to learn for people who are just about to start. SB=
RM? How is that easier to remember to the CADRe - actual word, which when u=
nfolded describes the technique from beginning to the end and one doesn't h=
ave to think twice in order to understand it? Resource Acquisition Is Initi=
alization? What? What does it mean? On the other hand, Constructor Acquires=
Destructor Releases makes sense, is easy to remember and as I've already s=
aid, describes the whole technique from A to Z. RAII? It's horrible.<br><br=
>On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 17:24:14 UTC, Micha=C5=82 Dominiak wrote:<bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border=
-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">Then use it on your own, if you f=
eel you need to. Good luck googling for it, good luck convincing others to =
use it, good luck to have to explain what that whole CADRe is [ Example:<di=
v><you> ...you know, CADRe...</div><div><some other guy> what i=
s that whole CADRe?</div><div><you> you know, it's my own name for RA=
II, also called SBRM by some people</div><div><some other guy> oh, wh=
y don't you just call it RAII?</div><div>-- end of example ], but it still =
has nothing to do with standard proposals or with standard alone. Go talk a=
bout it in various C++ communities, but not on ones related to standardizat=
ion.</div><div><br>On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 11:17:17 UTC+1, Arthur Tcha=
ikovsky wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-l=
eft:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class=3D=
"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc soli=
d;padding-left:1ex">
RAII does exactly what it says too</blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, RAII=
talks only about the init part, not about releasing resources. CADRe descr=
ibes whole process in a nutshell. </div><br>On Tuesday, 20 November 20=
12 04:36:57 UTC, <a>ri...@longbowgames.com</a> wrote:<blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid=
;padding-left:1ex">On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:56:46 AM UTC-5, Arthur Tc=
haikovsky wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-=
left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">a) actually means s=
omething "a nucleus or core group ...; broadly : a group of [functions] hav=
ing some unifying relationship"</blockquote><div> </div><div>A group o=
f functions having some unifying relationship is the perfect description of=
a class. Besides which, Oxford's latest example of the word 'cadre' being =
used in the sense of 'framework' dates to 1868. Nowadays it's used to refer=
to a small group of highly trained people working in harmony, particularly=
if they're military and/or underhanded/revolutionary. Even if you ignore t=
he negative implications of the word, it sounds more like it has something =
to do with parallel processing.<br><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-=
left:1ex"><div>b) actually does what it says - cooperates, meaning th=
at <b>C</b>onstructor <b>A</b>cquires, <b>D</b>estructor <b>R</b><b>e</b>le=
ases</div></blockquote><div><br>RAII does exactly what it says too: allocat=
ing resources is the same as initializing them. I remember when this term w=
as new to me, and it clicked with me as soon as I read it. Maybe this is be=
cause I already had a lot of experience in treating resource allocation and=
resource initialization separately, but that's not exactly an uncommon app=
roach.<br> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;m=
argin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>c) it is=
actual word</div></blockquote><div><br>Are you sure that's a good thing? T=
ry searching Google for RAII. If there's a good chance that people don't kn=
ow what your term means, it's awfully useful if that term is unique.<br></d=
iv></blockquote></blockquote></div></blockquote>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
------=_Part_159_19829907.1353480961125--
.
Author: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:47:39 +0200
Raw View
On 21 November 2012 08:56, Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not about me or anyone already familiar with C++. It's about making the
> whole language easier to learn for people who are just about to start. SBRM?
> How is that easier to remember to the CADRe - actual word, which when
> unfolded describes the technique from beginning to the end and one doesn't
> have to think twice in order to understand it? Resource Acquisition Is
> Initialization? What? What does it mean? On the other hand, Constructor
> Acquires Destructor Releases makes sense, is easy to remember and as I've
> already said, describes the whole technique from A to Z. RAII? It's
> horrible.
Then by all means talk to the book authors and teachers who use the term RAII,
and see whether they are willing to adopt a different term. This forum
is, as has been
pointed out multiple times, not the right place to discuss it. The
standard doesn't
use the term RAII, and the committee has no control over the terminology that
textbook authors use. This discussion is just noise.
--
.
Author: Nicol Bolas <jmckesson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:52:42 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_214_26297998.1353484362974
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 10:56:01 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:
>
> It's not about me or anyone already familiar with C++. It's about making
> the whole language easier to learn for people who are just about to start.
> SBRM? How is that easier to remember to the CADRe - actual word, which when
> unfolded describes the technique from beginning to the end and one doesn't
> have to think twice in order to understand it? Resource Acquisition Is
> Initialization? What? What does it mean? On the other hand, Constructor
> Acquires Destructor Releases makes sense, is easy to remember and as I've
> already said, describes the whole technique from A to Z. RAII? It's
> horrible.
OK, you're really not getting this, so let me spell it out plainly.
1: You are not going to convince the world to drop a term in common usage
just because you've come up with a better *name* for it. RAII has a 10 year
head start on you. It's called "RAII" now. However non-indicative it may
be, that's the name for it.
There's a Wikipedia article on RAII. There is no Wikipedia article on
"CADRe". And there never will be (even if you write it, it will be deleted
for being original research). You lost. You lost *5 years ago*. The
nomenclature is set. Best accept that and move on.
Names are pointless bikeshed issues that have little practical effect on
things. So it takes a student 5 minutes longer to learn RAII than CADRe.
They still learn it. If you show someone RAII principles, they still know
what they are.
2: Even if you had *unquestionable proof* that new C++ students are
absolutely dumbfounded by the term "RAII" and are utterly enlightened by
the term "CADRe", that wouldn't be enough. The practical fact is that
you're not going to unwrite thousands of pages of books and the innumerable
online resources that call it "RAII." That material exists, and your
unquestionable proof will not make it unexist. All adopting "CADRe" will do
is confuse your students when they cease being *your* students and go out
into the real world. Because everyone there calls it "RAII".
3: Most important of all, this forum is about discussing potential changes
to the ISO/IEC 14882:2011 Standard For Programming Langauge C++. The
ISO/IEC 14882:2011 Standard For Programming Langauge C++ does not mention
RAII. Therefore, your suggestion does not affect ISO/IEC 14882:2011
Standard For Programming Langauge C++ in any way, shape, or form. *YOU ARE
VERY OFF TOPIC DISCUSSING THIS HERE AT ALL!*
--
------=_Part_214_26297998.1353484362974
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 10:56:01 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:<=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;bord=
er-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">It's
not about me or anyone already familiar with C++. It's about making the
whole language easier to learn for people who are just about to start.=20
SBRM? How is that easier to remember to the CADRe - actual word, which=20
when unfolded describes the technique from beginning to the end and one=20
doesn't have to think twice in order to understand it? Resource=20
Acquisition Is Initialization? What? What does it mean? On the other=20
hand, Constructor Acquires Destructor Releases makes sense, is easy to=20
remember and as I've already said, describes the whole technique from A=20
to Z. RAII? It's horrible.</blockquote><div><br>OK, you're really not getti=
ng this, so let me spell it out plainly.<br><br>1: You are not going to con=
vince the world to drop a term in common usage just because you've come up =
with a better <i>name</i> for it. RAII has a 10 year head start on you. It'=
s called "RAII" now. However non-indicative it may be, that's the name for =
it.<br><br>There's
a Wikipedia article on RAII. There is no Wikipedia article on "CADRe".=20
And there never will be (even if you write it, it will be deleted for=20
being original research). You lost. You lost <i>5 years ago</i>. The nomenc=
lature is set. Best accept that and move on.<br><br>Names
are pointless bikeshed issues that have little practical effect on=20
things. So it takes a student 5 minutes longer to learn RAII than CADRe.
They still learn it. If you show someone RAII principles, they still=20
know what they are.<br><br>2: Even if you had <i>unquestionable proof</i>
that new C++ students are absolutely dumbfounded by the term "RAII" and
are utterly enlightened by the term "CADRe", that wouldn't be enough.=20
The practical fact is that you're not going to unwrite thousands of=20
pages of books and the innumerable online resources that call it "RAII."
That material exists, and your unquestionable proof will not make it=20
unexist. All adopting "CADRe" will do is confuse your students when they
cease being <i>your</i> students and go out into the real world. Because e=
veryone there calls it "RAII".<br><br>3: Most important of all, this forum =
is about discussing potential changes to the ISO/IEC 14882:2011=20
Standard For Programming Langauge C++. The ISO/IEC 14882:2011=20
Standard For Programming Langauge C++ does not mention=20
RAII. Therefore, your suggestion does not affect ISO/IEC 14882:2011=20
Standard For Programming Langauge C++ in any way, shape, or form. <b><i>YOU=
ARE VERY OFF TOPIC DISCUSSING THIS HERE AT ALL!</i></b><br></div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
------=_Part_214_26297998.1353484362974--
.
Author: Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 08:52:21 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_39_3547535.1353862341552
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> *YOU ARE VERY OFF TOPIC DISCUSSING THIS HERE AT ALL!*
a) do not shout! you've presented many times lack of basic manners, but
there is never too late to change it!
> The practical fact is that you're not going to unwrite thousands of pages
> of books and the innumerable online resources that call it "RAII." That
> material exists, and your unquestionable proof will not make it unexist.
b) that's why sun is orbiting earth all the time, because there were books
and the whole world believed in it.
c) "... a pattern known by the meaningless name RAII."(The Rule Of Zero, R.
Martinho Fernandez, isocpp.org, 2012)
The old-fashion way of thinking must change for the good of C++. Nothing is
ever set in stone. And if it is and is wrong, throw this stone away.
On Wednesday, 21 November 2012 07:52:43 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 10:56:01 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:
>>
>> It's not about me or anyone already familiar with C++. It's about making
>> the whole language easier to learn for people who are just about to start.
>> SBRM? How is that easier to remember to the CADRe - actual word, which when
>> unfolded describes the technique from beginning to the end and one doesn't
>> have to think twice in order to understand it? Resource Acquisition Is
>> Initialization? What? What does it mean? On the other hand, Constructor
>> Acquires Destructor Releases makes sense, is easy to remember and as I've
>> already said, describes the whole technique from A to Z. RAII? It's
>> horrible.
>
>
> OK, you're really not getting this, so let me spell it out plainly.
>
> 1: You are not going to convince the world to drop a term in common usage
> just because you've come up with a better *name* for it. RAII has a 10
> year head start on you. It's called "RAII" now. However non-indicative it
> may be, that's the name for it.
>
> There's a Wikipedia article on RAII. There is no Wikipedia article on
> "CADRe". And there never will be (even if you write it, it will be deleted
> for being original research). You lost. You lost *5 years ago*. The
> nomenclature is set. Best accept that and move on.
>
> Names are pointless bikeshed issues that have little practical effect on
> things. So it takes a student 5 minutes longer to learn RAII than CADRe.
> They still learn it. If you show someone RAII principles, they still know
> what they are.
>
> 2: Even if you had *unquestionable proof* that new C++ students are
> absolutely dumbfounded by the term "RAII" and are utterly enlightened by
> the term "CADRe", that wouldn't be enough. The practical fact is that
> you're not going to unwrite thousands of pages of books and the innumerable
> online resources that call it "RAII." That material exists, and your
> unquestionable proof will not make it unexist. All adopting "CADRe" will do
> is confuse your students when they cease being *your* students and go out
> into the real world. Because everyone there calls it "RAII".
>
> 3: Most important of all, this forum is about discussing potential changes
> to the ISO/IEC 14882:2011 Standard For Programming Langauge C++. The
> ISO/IEC 14882:2011 Standard For Programming Langauge C++ does not mention
> RAII. Therefore, your suggestion does not affect ISO/IEC 14882:2011
> Standard For Programming Langauge C++ in any way, shape, or form. *YOU
> ARE VERY OFF TOPIC DISCUSSING THIS HERE AT ALL!*
>
--
------=_Part_39_3547535.1353862341552
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;bor=
der-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
<b><i>YOU ARE VERY OFF TOPIC DISCUSSING THIS HERE AT ALL!</i></b>
</blockquote><div>a) do not shout! you've presented many times lack of basi=
c manners, but there is never too late to change it!<br></div><blockquote c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px=
#ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
The practical fact is that you're not going to unwrite thousands of=20
pages of books and the innumerable online resources that call it "RAII."
That material exists, and your unquestionable proof will not make it=20
unexist.</blockquote><div>b) that's why sun is orbiting earth all the time,=
because there were books and the whole world believed in it. </div><div>c)=
"... a pattern known by the meaningless name RAII."(The Rule Of Zero, R. M=
artinho Fernandez, isocpp.org, 2012)</div><div><br></div><div>The old-fashi=
on way of thinking must change for the good of C++. Nothing is ever set in =
stone. And if it is and is wrong, throw this stone away.</div><div> </=
div>On Wednesday, 21 November 2012 07:52:43 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:<blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-lef=
t: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 10:56:0=
1 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex=
">It's
not about me or anyone already familiar with C++. It's about making the
whole language easier to learn for people who are just about to start.=20
SBRM? How is that easier to remember to the CADRe - actual word, which=20
when unfolded describes the technique from beginning to the end and one=20
doesn't have to think twice in order to understand it? Resource=20
Acquisition Is Initialization? What? What does it mean? On the other=20
hand, Constructor Acquires Destructor Releases makes sense, is easy to=20
remember and as I've already said, describes the whole technique from A=20
to Z. RAII? It's horrible.</blockquote><div><br>OK, you're really not getti=
ng this, so let me spell it out plainly.<br><br>1: You are not going to con=
vince the world to drop a term in common usage just because you've come up =
with a better <i>name</i> for it. RAII has a 10 year head start on you. It'=
s called "RAII" now. However non-indicative it may be, that's the name for =
it.<br><br>There's
a Wikipedia article on RAII. There is no Wikipedia article on "CADRe".=20
And there never will be (even if you write it, it will be deleted for=20
being original research). You lost. You lost <i>5 years ago</i>. The nomenc=
lature is set. Best accept that and move on.<br><br>Names
are pointless bikeshed issues that have little practical effect on=20
things. So it takes a student 5 minutes longer to learn RAII than CADRe.
They still learn it. If you show someone RAII principles, they still=20
know what they are.<br><br>2: Even if you had <i>unquestionable proof</i>
that new C++ students are absolutely dumbfounded by the term "RAII" and
are utterly enlightened by the term "CADRe", that wouldn't be enough.=20
The practical fact is that you're not going to unwrite thousands of=20
pages of books and the innumerable online resources that call it "RAII."
That material exists, and your unquestionable proof will not make it=20
unexist. All adopting "CADRe" will do is confuse your students when they
cease being <i>your</i> students and go out into the real world. Because e=
veryone there calls it "RAII".<br><br>3: Most important of all, this forum =
is about discussing potential changes to the ISO/IEC 14882:2011=20
Standard For Programming Langauge C++. The ISO/IEC 14882:2011=20
Standard For Programming Langauge C++ does not mention=20
RAII. Therefore, your suggestion does not affect ISO/IEC 14882:2011=20
Standard For Programming Langauge C++ in any way, shape, or form. <b><i>YOU=
ARE VERY OFF TOPIC DISCUSSING THIS HERE AT ALL!</i></b><br></div></blockqu=
ote>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
------=_Part_39_3547535.1353862341552--
.
Author: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 19:52:49 +0200
Raw View
On 25 November 2012 18:52, Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com> wrote:
> b) that's why sun is orbiting earth all the time, because there were books
> and the whole world believed in it.
RAII is not an incorrect term, and it's not a standard term, and the
discussion of
it doesn't belong here.
> c) "... a pattern known by the meaningless name RAII."(The Rule Of Zero, R.
> Martinho Fernandez, isocpp.org, 2012)
The article actually words it "by the not very descriptive name RAII."
> The old-fashion way of thinking must change for the good of C++. Nothing is
> ever set in stone. And if it is and is wrong, throw this stone away.
I fail to see what this off-topic CADRe suggestion does for the good
of C++, nor do I
see anything substantially wrong with the alleged old-fashion
thinking. It's about
time to stop discussing this subject here.
--
.
Author: Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 22:59:59 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_467_22500752.1353913199112
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> The article actually words it "by the not very descriptive name RAII."
No, you are wrong. The article words it with the exact words I've cited,
that's why I've referenced it, and it says:
"In C++ the destructors of objects with automatic storage duration are
invoked whenever their scope ends. This property is often used to handle
cleanup of resources automatically in *a pattern known by the meaningless
name RAII."*
*
*
I just wonder, how could you not see it?*
*
<https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-w6pWLPNzNl0/ULMTY-YshiI/AAAAAAAAABk/E4tFx6RjgWY/s1600/Capture.PNG>
On Sunday, 25 November 2012 17:52:51 UTC, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
>
> On 25 November 2012 18:52, Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch...@gmail.com<javascript:>>
> wrote:
> > b) that's why sun is orbiting earth all the time, because there were
> books
> > and the whole world believed in it.
>
> RAII is not an incorrect term, and it's not a standard term, and the
> discussion of
> it doesn't belong here.
>
> > c) "... a pattern known by the meaningless name RAII."(The Rule Of Zero,
> R.
> > Martinho Fernandez, isocpp.org, 2012)
>
> The article actually words it "by the not very descriptive name RAII."
>
> > The old-fashion way of thinking must change for the good of C++. Nothing
> is
> > ever set in stone. And if it is and is wrong, throw this stone away.
>
> I fail to see what this off-topic CADRe suggestion does for the good
> of C++, nor do I
> see anything substantially wrong with the alleged old-fashion
> thinking. It's about
> time to stop discussing this subject here.
>
--
------=_Part_467_22500752.1353913199112
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex=
;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
The article actually words it "by the not very descriptive name RAII."</blo=
ckquote><div><br></div><div>No, you are wrong. The article words it with th=
e exact words I've cited, that's why I've referenced it, and it says:</div>=
<div><br></div><div>"In C++ the destructors of objects with automatic stora=
ge duration are invoked whenever their scope ends. This property is often u=
sed to handle cleanup of resources automatically in <strong>a pattern known=
by the meaningless name RAII."</strong></div><div><strong><br></strong></d=
iv><div>I just wonder, how could you not see it?<strong><br></strong></div>=
<p class=3D"separator" style=3D"text-align:center;clear:both"><a imageancho=
r=3D"1" href=3D"https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-w6pWLPNzNl0/ULMTY-YshiI/=
AAAAAAAAABk/E4tFx6RjgWY/s1600/Capture.PNG" style=3D"margin-left: 1em; margi=
n-right: 1em;"><img src=3D"https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-w6pWLPNzNl0/U=
LMTY-YshiI/AAAAAAAAABk/E4tFx6RjgWY/s320/Capture.PNG" border=3D"0" width=3D"=
320" height=3D"111"></a></p><div><br><br></div><div> </div>On Sunday, =
25 November 2012 17:52:51 UTC, Ville Voutilainen wrote:<blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #cc=
c solid;padding-left: 1ex;">On 25 November 2012 18:52, Arthur Tchaikovsky &=
lt;<a href=3D"javascript:" target=3D"_blank" gdf-obfuscated-mailto=3D"nPK4P=
qJU5h0J">atch...@gmail.com</a>> wrote:
<br>> b) that's why sun is orbiting earth all the time, because there we=
re books
<br>> and the whole world believed in it.
<br>
<br>RAII is not an incorrect term, and it's not a standard term, and the
<br>discussion of
<br>it doesn't belong here.
<br>
<br>> c) "... a pattern known by the meaningless name RAII."(The Rule Of=
Zero, R.
<br>> Martinho Fernandez, <a href=3D"http://isocpp.org" target=3D"_blank=
">isocpp.org</a>, 2012)
<br>
<br>The article actually words it "by the not very descriptive name RAII."
<br>
<br>> The old-fashion way of thinking must change for the good of C++. N=
othing is
<br>> ever set in stone. And if it is and is wrong, throw this stone awa=
y.
<br>
<br>I fail to see what this off-topic CADRe suggestion does for the good
<br>of C++, nor do I
<br>see anything substantially wrong with the alleged old-fashion
<br>thinking. It's about
<br>time to stop discussing this subject here.
<br></blockquote>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
------=_Part_467_22500752.1353913199112--
.
Author: Nicol Bolas <jmckesson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 23:55:14 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_149_431546.1353916514832
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Sunday, November 25, 2012 10:59:59 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:
>
>
> The article actually words it "by the not very descriptive name RAII."
>
>
> No, you are wrong. The article words it with the exact words I've cited,
> that's why I've referenced it, and it says:
>
> "In C++ the destructors of objects with automatic storage duration are
> invoked whenever their scope ends. This property is often used to handle
> cleanup of resources automatically in *a pattern known by the meaningless
> name RAII."*
> *
> *
> I just wonder, how could you not see it?*
> *
>
>
> <https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-w6pWLPNzNl0/ULMTY-YshiI/AAAAAAAAABk/E4tFx6RjgWY/s1600/Capture.PNG>
>
Because he's looking at the *actual article*. The excerpt on the C++ page
is inaccurate, likely because the article was revised after the excerpt was
taken.
--
------=_Part_149_431546.1353916514832
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<br><br>On Sunday, November 25, 2012 10:59:59 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky =
wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8=
ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><br><blockquote class=3D=
"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc soli=
d;padding-left:1ex">
The article actually words it "by the not very descriptive name RAII."</blo=
ckquote><div><br></div><div>No, you are wrong. The article words it with th=
e exact words I've cited, that's why I've referenced it, and it says:</div>=
<div><br></div><div>"In C++ the destructors of objects with automatic stora=
ge duration are invoked whenever their scope ends. This property is often u=
sed to handle cleanup of resources automatically in <b>a pattern known by t=
he meaningless name RAII."</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div>I just wonde=
r, how could you not see it?<b><br></b></div><p style=3D"text-align:center;=
clear:both"><a href=3D"https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-w6pWLPNzNl0/ULMTY=
-YshiI/AAAAAAAAABk/E4tFx6RjgWY/s1600/Capture.PNG" style=3D"margin-left:1em;=
margin-right:1em" target=3D"_blank"></a></p></blockquote><div><br>Because h=
e's looking at the <i>actual article</i>. The excerpt on the C++ page is in=
accurate, likely because the article was revised after the excerpt was take=
n.</div><br>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
------=_Part_149_431546.1353916514832--
.
Author: Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 00:10:14 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_305_15380426.1353917414310
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
This just proves my point: RAII is at best not very descriptive, at worst
meaningless.
On Monday, 26 November 2012 07:55:15 UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, November 25, 2012 10:59:59 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:
>>
>>
>> The article actually words it "by the not very descriptive name RAII."
>>
>>
>> No, you are wrong. The article words it with the exact words I've cited,
>> that's why I've referenced it, and it says:
>>
>> "In C++ the destructors of objects with automatic storage duration are
>> invoked whenever their scope ends. This property is often used to handle
>> cleanup of resources automatically in *a pattern known by the
>> meaningless name RAII."*
>> *
>> *
>> I just wonder, how could you not see it?*
>> *
>>
>
> Because he's looking at the *actual article*. The excerpt on the C++ page
> is inaccurate, likely because the article was revised after the excerpt was
> taken.
>
>
--
------=_Part_305_15380426.1353917414310
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This just proves my point: RAII is at best not very descriptive, at worst m=
eaningless.<br><br>On Monday, 26 November 2012 07:55:15 UTC, Nicol Bolas w=
rote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8e=
x;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><br><br>On Sunday, Novemb=
er 25, 2012 10:59:59 PM UTC-8, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote:<blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc s=
olid;padding-left:1ex"><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The article actually words it "by the not very descriptive name RAII."</blo=
ckquote><div><br></div><div>No, you are wrong. The article words it with th=
e exact words I've cited, that's why I've referenced it, and it says:</div>=
<div><br></div><div>"In C++ the destructors of objects with automatic stora=
ge duration are invoked whenever their scope ends. This property is often u=
sed to handle cleanup of resources automatically in <b>a pattern known by t=
he meaningless name RAII."</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div>I just wonde=
r, how could you not see it?<b><br></b></div></blockquote><div><br>Because =
he's looking at the <i>actual article</i>. The excerpt on the C++ page is i=
naccurate, likely because the article was revised after the excerpt was tak=
en.</div><br></blockquote>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
------=_Part_305_15380426.1353917414310--
.
Author: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:36:05 +0200
Raw View
On 26 November 2012 10:10, Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com> wrote:
> This just proves my point: RAII is at best not very descriptive, at worst
> meaningless.
Whatever point you're trying to make is still off-topic here. Also,
RAII is at least
correct, whereas CADRe isn't:
#include <memory>
struct MyHandle
{
std::shared_ptr<int> handle_;
};
int main()
{
MyHandle m{std::make_shared<int>(42)};
}
"Constructor acquires"? There's no constructor for MyHandle in sight.
That's probably
one of the reasons RAII states that resource acquisition is
_initialization_, because
not all initialization is construction.
Now, go convince the C++ book authors that they need to change their
terminology.
It's not a standard proposal, so it's pointless to spam about it here.
--
.
Author: Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 09:07:15 +0000
Raw View
" "Constructor acquires"? There's no constructor for MyHandle in sight."
What do you mean there is no ctor in sight? You initialize MyHandle
via default, compiler generated ctor. What do you think is happening
there?
"It's not a standard proposal, so it's pointless to spam about it here."
I do not spam, I'm more than happy for moderator to move this thread
to std::discussion forum. But I do not spam.
On 11/26/12, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 November 2012 10:10, Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This just proves my point: RAII is at best not very descriptive, at worst
>> meaningless.
>
> Whatever point you're trying to make is still off-topic here. Also,
> RAII is at least
> correct, whereas CADRe isn't:
>
> #include <memory>
>
> struct MyHandle
> {
> std::shared_ptr<int> handle_;
> };
>
> int main()
> {
> MyHandle m{std::make_shared<int>(42)};
> }
>
> "Constructor acquires"? There's no constructor for MyHandle in sight.
> That's probably
> one of the reasons RAII states that resource acquisition is
> _initialization_, because
> not all initialization is construction.
>
> Now, go convince the C++ book authors that they need to change their
> terminology.
> It's not a standard proposal, so it's pointless to spam about it here.
>
> --
>
>
>
>
--
.
Author: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:14:59 +0200
Raw View
On 26 November 2012 11:07, Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com> wrote:
> " "Constructor acquires"? There's no constructor for MyHandle in sight."
> What do you mean there is no ctor in sight? You initialize MyHandle
> via default, compiler generated ctor. What do you think is happening
> there?
Aggregate initialization is happening, and the handle_ member is not initialized
by a constructor.
> "It's not a standard proposal, so it's pointless to spam about it here."
> I do not spam, I'm more than happy for moderator to move this thread
> to std::discussion forum. But I do not spam.
This wouldn't be any more on-topic on std-discussion either. If you claim
you don't spam, then by all means stop doing it, because this whole
thread is nothing but off-topic spam, and you continue doing it despite
people pointing it out and requesting this discussion to be stopped.
What a moderator should do is give you a fortnight ban, perhaps that
would help the message sink in.
--
.
Author: Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 09:25:33 +0000
Raw View
"Aggregate initialization is happening, and the handle_ member is not
initialized
by a constructor."
Your example does not illustrate RAII technique.
On 11/26/12, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 November 2012 11:07, Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com> wrote:
>> " "Constructor acquires"? There's no constructor for MyHandle in sight."
>> What do you mean there is no ctor in sight? You initialize MyHandle
>> via default, compiler generated ctor. What do you think is happening
>> there?
>
> Aggregate initialization is happening, and the handle_ member is not
> initialized
> by a constructor.
>
>
>> "It's not a standard proposal, so it's pointless to spam about it here."
>> I do not spam, I'm more than happy for moderator to move this thread
>> to std::discussion forum. But I do not spam.
>
> This wouldn't be any more on-topic on std-discussion either. If you claim
> you don't spam, then by all means stop doing it, because this whole
> thread is nothing but off-topic spam, and you continue doing it despite
> people pointing it out and requesting this discussion to be stopped.
> What a moderator should do is give you a fortnight ban, perhaps that
> would help the message sink in.
>
> --
>
>
>
>
--
.
Author: Sebastian Gesemann <s.gesemann@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:32:44 +0100
Raw View
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
>
> Whatever point you're trying to make is still off-topic here. Also,
> RAII is [...]
No "also...", please. There is really no need to say more than "It's
off-topic." unless you want Arthur to respond to an off-topic comment
with another off-topic comment. The chance of him being the first one
to stop being off-topic seems to be close to zero. Let's lead by
example.
Cheers!
SG
--
.
Author: rick@longbowgames.com
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 03:33:30 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_19_6259131.1353929610460
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Listen, I know that "someone is wrong on the Internet <http://xkcd.com/386/>",
but it's probably best for everyone to just stop replying to this thread.
Arthur, you have my blessing to call it CADRe.
--
------=_Part_19_6259131.1353929610460
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Listen, I know that "<a href="http://xkcd.com/386/">someone is wrong on the Internet</a>", but it's probably best for everyone to just stop replying to this thread.<br><br>Arthur, you have my blessing to call it CADRe.<br>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
------=_Part_19_6259131.1353929610460--
.
Author: Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch.cpp@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:36:04 +0000
Raw View
@rick
Thanks for the link. Really (really) needed this bit of humor ;)
On 11/26/12, rick@longbowgames.com <rick@longbowgames.com> wrote:
> Listen, I know that "someone is wrong on the Internet
> <http://xkcd.com/386/>",
> but it's probably best for everyone to just stop replying to this thread.
>
> Arthur, you have my blessing to call it CADRe.
>
> --
>
>
>
>
--
.