This is wrong, right?

[Steven T. Hatton]

The discussion of the example code, and the example code are mutually
inconsistent in the following are they not?

<quote>
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infoce...ame_hiding.htm
Name hiding (C++ only)

If a class name or enumeration name is in scope and not hidden, it is
visible. A class name or enumeration name can be hidden by an explicit
declaration of that same name -- as an object, function, or enumerator --
in a nested declarative region or derived class. The class name or
enumeration name is hidden wherever the object, function, or enumerator
name is visible. This process is referred to as name hiding.

In a member function definition, the declaration of a local name hides the
declaration of a member of the class with the same name. The declaration of
a member in a derived class hides the declaration of a member of a base
class of the same name.

Suppose a name x is a member of namespace A, and suppose that the members of
namespace A are visible in a namespace B because of a using declaration. A
declaration of an object named x in namespace B will hide A::x. The
following example demonstrates this:

#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
using namespace std;

namespace A {
char x;
};

namespace B {
using namespace A;
int x;
};

int main() {
cout << typeid(B::x).name() << endl;
}

The following is the output of the above example:

int

The declaration of the integer x in namespace B hides the character x
introduced by the using declaration.
</quote>

If anybody knows how to contact the maintainers of the document, you may
want to let them know.
--
NOUN:1. Money or property bequeathed to another by will. 2. Something handed
down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past: a legacy of
religious freedom. ETYMOLOGY: MidE legacie, office of a deputy, from OF,
from ML legatia, from L legare, to depute, bequeath. www.bartleby.com/61/

[Greg]

Steven T. Hatton wrote:

The discussion of the example code, and the example code are mutually
inconsistent in the following are they not?

<quote>
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infoce...ame_hiding.htm
Name hiding (C++ only)

If a class name or enumeration name is in scope and not hidden, it is
visible. A class name or enumeration name can be hidden by an explicit
declaration of that same name -- as an object, function, or enumerator --
in a nested declarative region or derived class. The class name or
enumeration name is hidden wherever the object, function, or enumerator
name is visible. This process is referred to as name hiding.

In a member function definition, the declaration of a local name hides the
declaration of a member of the class with the same name. The declaration of
a member in a derived class hides the declaration of a member of a base
class of the same name.

Suppose a name x is a member of namespace A, and suppose that the members of
namespace A are visible in a namespace B because of a using declaration. A
declaration of an object named x in namespace B will hide A::x. The
following example demonstrates this:

#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
using namespace std;

namespace A {
char x;
};

namespace B {
using namespace A;
int x;
};

int main() {
cout << typeid(B::x).name() << endl;
}

The following is the output of the above example:

int

The declaration of the integer x in namespace B hides the character x
introduced by the using declaration.
</quote>

If anybody knows how to contact the maintainers of the document, you may
want to let them know.

So all that needs to be done is to tell the maintainers that you think
there is a mistake in the above text? In particular it's not useful -
for them or for anyone else - to know what you think the mistake is?

Greg

[Steven T. Hatton]

Greg wrote:

Steven T. Hatton wrote:

>The discussion of the example code, and the example code are mutually
inconsistent in the following are they not?

<quote>

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infoce...ame_hiding.htm

>Name hiding (C++ only)

If a class name or enumeration name is in scope and not hidden, it is
visible. A class name or enumeration name can be hidden by an explicit
declaration of that same name -- as an object, function, or enumerator --
in a nested declarative region or derived class. The class name or
enumeration name is hidden wherever the object, function, or enumerator
name is visible. This process is referred to as name hiding.

In a member function definition, the declaration of a local name hides
the declaration of a member of the class with the same name. The
declaration of a member in a derived class hides the declaration of a
member of a base class of the same name.

Suppose a name x is a member of namespace A, and suppose that the members
of namespace A are visible in a namespace B because of a using
declaration. A declaration of an object named x in namespace B will hide
A::x. The following example demonstrates this:

#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
using namespace std;

namespace A {
char x;
};

namespace B {
using namespace A;
int x;
};

int main() {
cout << typeid(B::x).name() << endl;
}

The following is the output of the above example:

int

The declaration of the integer x in namespace B hides the character x
introduced by the using declaration.
</quote>

If anybody knows how to contact the maintainers of the document, you may
want to let them know.

So all that needs to be done is to tell the maintainers that you think
there is a mistake in the above text? In particular it's not useful -
for them or for anyone else - to know what you think the mistake is?

Greg

Perhaps I am mistaken. Is there no error?

--
NOUN:1. Money or property bequeathed to another by will. 2. Something handed
down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past: a legacy of
religious freedom. ETYMOLOGY: MidE legacie, office of a deputy, from OF,
from ML legatia, from L legare, to depute, bequeath. www.bartleby.com/61/

[Kai-Uwe Bux]

Steven T. Hatton wrote:

Greg wrote:

>Steven T. Hatton wrote:

>>The discussion of the example code, and the example code are mutually
inconsistent in the following are they not?

<quote>

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infoce...ame_hiding.htm

>>Name hiding (C++ only)

If a class name or enumeration name is in scope and not hidden, it is
visible. A class name or enumeration name can be hidden by an explicit
declaration of that same name -- as an object, function, or enumerator
-- in a nested declarative region or derived class. The class name or
enumeration name is hidden wherever the object, function, or enumerator
name is visible. This process is referred to as name hiding.

In a member function definition, the declaration of a local name hides
the declaration of a member of the class with the same name. The
declaration of a member in a derived class hides the declaration of a
member of a base class of the same name.

Suppose a name x is a member of namespace A, and suppose that the
members of namespace A are visible in a namespace B because of a using
declaration. A declaration of an object named x in namespace B will hide
A::x. The following example demonstrates this:

#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
using namespace std;

namespace A {
char x;
};

namespace B {
using namespace A;
int x;
};

int main() {
cout << typeid(B::x).name() << endl;
}

The following is the output of the above example:

int

The declaration of the integer x in namespace B hides the character x
introduced by the using declaration.
</quote>

If anybody knows how to contact the maintainers of the document, you may
want to let them know.

So all that needs to be done is to tell the maintainers that you think
there is a mistake in the above text? In particular it's not useful -
for them or for anyone else - to know what you think the mistake is?

Greg

Perhaps I am mistaken. Is there no error?

Is this a quiz? What do _you_ think is false. Please, be more specific; then
you might get better answers.
Best

Kai-Uwe Bux

[Steven T. Hatton]

Kai-Uwe Bux wrote:

Steven T. Hatton wrote:

>Greg wrote:

>>Steven T. Hatton wrote:
The discussion of the example code, and the example code are mutually
inconsistent in the following are they not?

<quote>

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infoce...ame_hiding.htm

>>>Name hiding (C++ only)

If a class name or enumeration name is in scope and not hidden, it is
visible. A class name or enumeration name can be hidden by an explicit
declaration of that same name -- as an object, function, or enumerator
-- in a nested declarative region or derived class. The class name or
enumeration name is hidden wherever the object, function, or enumerator
name is visible. This process is referred to as name hiding.

In a member function definition, the declaration of a local name hides
the declaration of a member of the class with the same name. The
declaration of a member in a derived class hides the declaration of a
member of a base class of the same name.

Suppose a name x is a member of namespace A, and suppose that the
members of namespace A are visible in a namespace B because of a using
declaration. A declaration of an object named x in namespace B will
hide A::x. The following example demonstrates this:

#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
using namespace std;

namespace A {
char x;
};

namespace B {
using namespace A;
int x;
};

int main() {
cout << typeid(B::x).name() << endl;
}

The following is the output of the above example:

int

The declaration of the integer x in namespace B hides the character x
introduced by the using declaration.
</quote>

If anybody knows how to contact the maintainers of the document, you
may want to let them know.

So all that needs to be done is to tell the maintainers that you think
there is a mistake in the above text? In particular it's not useful -
for them or for anyone else - to know what you think the mistake is?

Greg

Perhaps I am mistaken. Is there no error?

Is this a quiz? What do _you_ think is false. Please, be more specific;
then you might get better answers.
Best

Kai-Uwe Bux

I couldn't have hoped for a better response.

--
NOUN:1. Money or property bequeathed to another by will. 2. Something handed
down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past: a legacy of
religious freedom. ETYMOLOGY: MidE legacie, office of a deputy, from OF,
from ML legatia, from L legare, to depute, bequeath. www.bartleby.com/61/

[Greg]

Steven T. Hatton wrote:

Greg wrote:

Steven T. Hatton wrote:

The discussion of the example code, and the example code are mutually
inconsistent in the following are they not?

<quote>

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infoce...ame_hiding.htm

Name hiding (C++ only)

If a class name or enumeration name is in scope and not hidden, it is
visible. A class name or enumeration name can be hidden by an explicit
declaration of that same name -- as an object, function, or enumerator --
in a nested declarative region or derived class. The class name or
enumeration name is hidden wherever the object, function, or enumerator
name is visible. This process is referred to as name hiding.

In a member function definition, the declaration of a local name hides
the declaration of a member of the class with the same name. The
declaration of a member in a derived class hides the declaration of a
member of a base class of the same name.

Suppose a name x is a member of namespace A, and suppose that the members
of namespace A are visible in a namespace B because of a using
declaration. A declaration of an object named x in namespace B will hide
A::x. The following example demonstrates this:

#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
using namespace std;

namespace A {
char x;
};

namespace B {
using namespace A;
int x;
};

int main() {
cout << typeid(B::x).name() << endl;
}

The following is the output of the above example:

int

The declaration of the integer x in namespace B hides the character x
introduced by the using declaration.
</quote>

If anybody knows how to contact the maintainers of the document, you may
want to let them know.

So all that needs to be done is to tell the maintainers that you think
there is a mistake in the above text? In particular it's not useful -
for them or for anyone else - to know what you think the mistake is?

Greg

Perhaps I am mistaken. Is there no error?

The text states that "int x" declaration in B hides the "char x"
declaration in A that is brought into the B namespace with the "using"
declaration. Therefore B::x refers to an int and not to a char
variable.

The output of the program, "int", is implementation-dependent (on gcc,
"i" is the output). But since this text is from the manual for an IBM
compiler, it is reasonable for the text to describe the output of that
compiler.

Greg

[Howard]

"Steven T. Hatton" <ch********@germania.supwrote in message
news:BP******************************@speakeasy.ne t...

Kai-Uwe Bux wrote:

>Steven T. Hatton wrote:

>>Greg wrote:

Steven T. Hatton wrote:
The discussion of the example code, and the example code are mutually
inconsistent in the following are they not?

In what way?

>>>>>
<quote>
>

Name hiding (C++ only)
>

>>>>Suppose a name x is a member of namespace A, and suppose that the
members of namespace A are visible in a namespace B because of a using
declaration. A declaration of an object named x in namespace B will
hide A::x. The following example demonstrates this:
>
namespace A {
char x;
};
>
namespace B {
using namespace A;
int x;
};

>>>>>
The declaration of the integer x in namespace B hides the character x
introduced by the using declaration.
</quote>

So what's the problem? Just as the text above and below the example states,
the int x hides the char x.

>>>>>
If anybody knows how to contact the maintainers of the document, you
may want to let them know.

So all that needs to be done is to tell the maintainers that you think
there is a mistake in the above text? In particular it's not useful -
for them or for anyone else - to know what you think the mistake is?

>>Perhaps I am mistaken. Is there no error?

I don't see one. Do you?

>>
Is this a quiz? What do _you_ think is false. Please, be more specific;
then you might get better answers.

I couldn't have hoped for a better response.

Now you sound like you're just trolling. Is there some reason you're unable
or unwilling to articulate what error you're referring to?

-Howard

[Steven T. Hatton]

Howard wrote:

>
"Steven T. Hatton" <ch********@germania.supwrote in message
news:BP******************************@speakeasy.ne t...

>Kai-Uwe Bux wrote:

>>Steven T. Hatton wrote:

Greg wrote:

Steven T. Hatton wrote:
>The discussion of the example code, and the example code are mutually
>inconsistent in the following are they not?

In what way?

>>>>>>
><quote>
>>

>Name hiding (C++ only)
>>

>>>>>Suppose a name x is a member of namespace A, and suppose that the
>members of namespace A are visible in a namespace B because of a
>using declaration. A declaration of an object named x in namespace B
>will hide A::x. The following example demonstrates this:
>>
>namespace A {
> char x;
>};
>>
>namespace B {
> using namespace A;
> int x;
>};

>>>>>>
>The declaration of the integer x in namespace B hides the character x
>introduced by the using declaration.
></quote>

So what's the problem? Just as the text above and below the example
states, the int x hides the char x.

>>>>>>
>If anybody knows how to contact the maintainers of the document, you
>may want to let them know.
>
So all that needs to be done is to tell the maintainers that you think
there is a mistake in the above text? In particular it's not useful -
for them or for anyone else - to know what you think the mistake is?
>

>>>Perhaps I am mistaken. Is there no error?

I don't see one. Do you?

>>>
Is this a quiz? What do _you_ think is false. Please, be more specific;
then you might get better answers.

I couldn't have hoped for a better response.

Now you sound like you're just trolling. Is there some reason you're
unable or unwilling to articulate what error you're referring to?

Yes.

--
NOUN:1. Money or property bequeathed to another by will. 2. Something handed
down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past: a legacy of
religious freedom. ETYMOLOGY: MidE legacie, office of a deputy, from OF,
from ML legatia, from L legare, to depute, bequeath. www.bartleby.com/61/

[Noah Roberts]

Steven T. Hatton wrote:

Howard wrote:

Now you sound like you're just trolling. Is there some reason you're
unable or unwilling to articulate what error you're referring to?

Yes.

They say that when you find yourself at the bottom of a hole stop
digging.

[Steven T. Hatton]

Noah Roberts wrote:

>
Steven T. Hatton wrote:

>Howard wrote:

Now you sound like you're just trolling. Is there some reason you're
unable or unwilling to articulate what error you're referring to?

Yes.

They say that when you find yourself at the bottom of a hole stop
digging.

I'm not the one doing the digging.

--
NOUN:1. Money or property bequeathed to another by will. 2. Something handed
down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past: a legacy of
religious freedom. ETYMOLOGY: MidE legacie, office of a deputy, from OF,
from ML legatia, from L legare, to depute, bequeath. www.bartleby.com/61/

[Steven T. Hatton]

Greg wrote:

>Suppose a name x is a member of namespace A, and suppose that the
members of namespace A are visible in a namespace B because of a using
declaration. A declaration of an object named x in namespace B will
hide A::x. The following example demonstrates this:

#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
using namespace std;

namespace A {
char x;
};

namespace B {
using namespace A;
int x;
};

int main() {
cout << typeid(B::x).name() << endl;
}

>
The text states that "int x" declaration in B hides the "char x"
declaration in A that is brought into the B namespace with the "using"
declaration. Therefore B::x refers to an int and not to a char
variable.

The output of the program, "int", is implementation-dependent (on gcc,
"i" is the output). But since this text is from the manual for an IBM
compiler, it is reasonable for the text to describe the output of that
compiler.

Greg

There is no using declaration in the example.

See ISO/IEC 14882:2003(E) §7.3.3 and §7.3.4

This is an older version, but the essence is the same:
http://www.kuzbass.ru:8086/docs/isoc...amespace.udecl

And yes, this is more than mere pedantry on my part. It really does matter.
--
NOUN:1. Money or property bequeathed to another by will. 2. Something handed
down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past: a legacy of
religious freedom. ETYMOLOGY: MidE legacie, office of a deputy, from OF,
from ML legatia, from L legare, to depute, bequeath. www.bartleby.com/61/

[Howard]

"Steven T. Hatton" <ch********@germania.supwrote in message
news:z9******************************@speakeasy.ne t...

Greg wrote:

>>Suppose a name x is a member of namespace A, and suppose that the
members of namespace A are visible in a namespace B because of a
using
declaration. A declaration of an object named x in namespace B will
hide A::x. The following example demonstrates this:

#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
using namespace std;

namespace A {
char x;
};

namespace B {
using namespace A;
int x;
};

int main() {
cout << typeid(B::x).name() << endl;
}

>>
The text states that "int x" declaration in B hides the "char x"
declaration in A that is brought into the B namespace with the "using"
declaration. Therefore B::x refers to an int and not to a char
variable.

The output of the program, "int", is implementation-dependent (on gcc,
"i" is the output). But since this text is from the manual for an IBM
compiler, it is reasonable for the text to describe the output of that
compiler.

Greg

There is no using declaration in the example.

See ISO/IEC 14882:2003(E) '7.3.3 and '7.3.4

This is an older version, but the essence is the same:
http://www.kuzbass.ru:8086/docs/isoc...amespace.udecl

And yes, this is more than mere pedantry on my part. It really does
matter.

Ok, so he said "using declaration" when he should have said "using
directive". Why not just say that up front? Quit acting like a troll and
get to your point, or you'll find it very lonely here.

-Howard

[Steven T. Hatton]

Howard wrote:

>
"Steven T. Hatton" <ch********@germania.supwrote in message
news:z9******************************@speakeasy.ne t...

>Greg wrote:

>>>Suppose a name x is a member of namespace A, and suppose that the
members of namespace A are visible in a namespace B because of a
using
declaration. A declaration of an object named x in namespace B will
hide A::x. The following example demonstrates this:

#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
using namespace std;

namespace A {
char x;
};

namespace B {
using namespace A;
int x;
};

int main() {
cout << typeid(B::x).name() << endl;
}

>>>
The text states that "int x" declaration in B hides the "char x"
declaration in A that is brought into the B namespace with the "using"
declaration. Therefore B::x refers to an int and not to a char
variable.

The output of the program, "int", is implementation-dependent (on gcc,
"i" is the output). But since this text is from the manual for an IBM
compiler, it is reasonable for the text to describe the output of that
compiler.

Greg

There is no using declaration in the example.

See ISO/IEC 14882:2003(E) '7.3.3 and '7.3.4

This is an older version, but the essence is the same:
http://www.kuzbass.ru:8086/docs/isoc...amespace.udecl

And yes, this is more than mere pedantry on my part. It really does
matter.

Ok, so he said "using declaration" when he should have said "using
directive". Why not just say that up front? Quit acting like a troll and
get to your point, or you'll find it very lonely here.

The official IBM AIX C++ language reference has it wrong. Trying to spell
out the point I am making would be moot. Either you get it our you don't.

Here's one minor point to consider: Being an obnoxious arrogant twit who
knows what he is talking about is far superior to being an obnoxious
arrogant twit who doesn't know what he is talking about.

--
NOUN:1. Money or property bequeathed to another by will. 2. Something handed
down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past: a legacy of
religious freedom. ETYMOLOGY: MidE legacie, office of a deputy, from OF,
from ML legatia, from L legare, to depute, bequeath. www.bartleby.com/61/

[Noah Roberts]

Steven T. Hatton wrote:

The official IBM AIX C++ language reference has it wrong.

Where? In what way?

Of course, several people have already asked you these questions.

Trying to spell
out the point I am making would be moot. Either you get it our you don't.

Apparently nobody does so you must be speaking for only your own
benefit...seing as you do not wish others to understand you.

[Kai-Uwe Bux]

Steven T. Hatton wrote:

Howard wrote:

>>
"Steven T. Hatton" <ch********@germania.supwrote in message
news:z9******************************@speakeasy.n et...

>>Greg wrote:
Suppose a name x is a member of namespace A, and suppose that the
members of namespace A are visible in a namespace B because of a
using
declaration. A declaration of an object named x in namespace B will
hide A::x. The following example demonstrates this:
>
#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
using namespace std;
>
namespace A {
char x;
};
>
namespace B {
using namespace A;
int x;
};
>
int main() {
cout << typeid(B::x).name() << endl;
}
The text states that "int x" declaration in B hides the "char x"
declaration in A that is brought into the B namespace with the "using"
declaration. Therefore B::x refers to an int and not to a char
variable.

The output of the program, "int", is implementation-dependent (on gcc,
"i" is the output). But since this text is from the manual for an IBM
compiler, it is reasonable for the text to describe the output of that
compiler.

Greg

There is no using declaration in the example.

See ISO/IEC 14882:2003(E) '7.3.3 and '7.3.4

This is an older version, but the essence is the same:
http://www.kuzbass.ru:8086/docs/isoc...amespace.udecl

And yes, this is more than mere pedantry on my part. It really does
matter.

Ok, so he said "using declaration" when he should have said "using
directive". Why not just say that up front? Quit acting like a troll
and get to your point, or you'll find it very lonely here.

The official IBM AIX C++ language reference has it wrong. Trying to spell
out the point I am making would be moot. Either you get it our you don't.

Here's one minor point to consider: Being an obnoxious arrogant twit who
knows what he is talking about is far superior to being an obnoxious
arrogant twit who doesn't know what he is talking about.

Maybe, but as long as you keep dancing around the issue, we have no way of
determining which of the two applies.
Best

Kai-Uwe Bux

[Howard]

"Steven T. Hatton" <ch********@germania.supwrote in message
news:9d******************************@speakeasy.ne t...

Here's one minor point to consider: Being an obnoxious arrogant twit

You can stop there. Now I understand perfectly.

[Steven T. Hatton]

Noah Roberts wrote:

>
Steven T. Hatton wrote:

>The official IBM AIX C++ language reference has it wrong.

Where? In what way?

Of course, several people have already asked you these questions.

Restored for context:

>
There is no using declaration in the example.

See ISO/IEC 14882:2003(E) '7.3.3 and '7.3.4

This is an older version, but the essence is the same:
http://www.kuzbass.ru:8086/docs/isoc...amespace.udecl

And yes, this is more than mere pedantry on my part. *It really does
matter.

Congratulations Noah! You are the first person in my 15 years on USENET to
get an official, fully pronounced, RTFM from me. Not only did I explain
what is wrong with the example. I also provided specific references to the
Standard and easy access to a copy of the same so that the reader might
verify it for him or herself.

> Trying to spell
out the point I am making would be moot. Either you get it our you
don't.

Apparently nobody does so you must be speaking for only your own
benefit...seing as you do not wish others to understand you.

The silence of certain knowledgeable others regarding this thread is
sufficient to convince me that some do get it.

--
NOUN:1. Money or property bequeathed to another by will. 2. Something handed
down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past: a legacy of
religious freedom. ETYMOLOGY: MidE legacie, office of a deputy, from OF,
from ML legatia, from L legare, to depute, bequeath. www.bartleby.com/61/

[Steven T. Hatton]

Kai-Uwe Bux wrote:

Steven T. Hatton wrote:

>Howard wrote:

>>>
"Steven T. Hatton" <ch********@germania.supwrote in message
news:z9******************************@speakeasy. net...
Greg wrote:
>Suppose a name x is a member of namespace A, and suppose that the
>members of namespace A are visible in a namespace B because of a
>using
>declaration. A declaration of an object named x in namespace B
>will hide A::x. The following example demonstrates this:
>>
>#include <iostream>
>#include <typeinfo>
>using namespace std;
>>
>namespace A {
> char x;
>};
>>
>namespace B {
> using namespace A;
> int x;
>};
>>
>int main() {
> cout << typeid(B::x).name() << endl;
>}

>
The text states that "int x" declaration in B hides the "char x"
declaration in A that is brought into the B namespace with the "using"
declaration. Therefore B::x refers to an int and not to a char
variable.
>
The output of the program, "int", is implementation-dependent (on gcc,
"i" is the output). But since this text is from the manual for an IBM
compiler, it is reasonable for the text to describe the output of that
compiler.
>
Greg

There is no using declaration in the example.

See ISO/IEC 14882:2003(E) '7.3.3 and '7.3.4

This is an older version, but the essence is the same:
http://www.kuzbass.ru:8086/docs/isoc...amespace.udecl

And yes, this is more than mere pedantry on my part. It really does
matter.

Ok, so he said "using declaration" when he should have said "using
directive". Why not just say that up front? Quit acting like a troll
and get to your point, or you'll find it very lonely here.

The official IBM AIX C++ language reference has it wrong. Trying to
spell
out the point I am making would be moot. Either you get it our you
don't.

Here's one minor point to consider: Being an obnoxious arrogant twit who
knows what he is talking about is far superior to being an obnoxious
arrogant twit who doesn't know what he is talking about.

Maybe, but as long as you keep dancing around the issue, we have no way of
determining which of the two applies.

This response intentionally left blank.

--
NOUN:1. Money or property bequeathed to another by will. 2. Something handed
down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past: a legacy of
religious freedom. ETYMOLOGY: MidE legacie, office of a deputy, from OF,
from ML legatia, from L legare, to depute, bequeath. www.bartleby.com/61/

[Evan]

Here's one minor point to consider: Being an obnoxious arrogant twit who
knows what he is talking about is far superior to being an obnoxious
arrogant twit who doesn't know what he is talking about.

But it still leaves you an obnoxious arrogant twit. *Unhelpful*
obnoxious arrogant twit you might add.

[Jack Klein]

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:56:38 -0500, "Steven T. Hatton"
<ch********@germania.supwrote in comp.lang.c++:

Here's one minor point to consider: Being an obnoxious arrogant twit who
knows what he is talking about is far superior to being an obnoxious
arrogant twit who doesn't know what he is talking about.

Can't remember why I removed you from my kill file once. Guarantee it
won't happen again.

*plonk*

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html

[Steven T. Hatton]

Jack Klein wrote:

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:56:38 -0500, "Steven T. Hatton"
<ch********@germania.supwrote in comp.lang.c++:

>Here's one minor point to consider: Being an obnoxious arrogant twit who
knows what he is talking about is far superior to being an obnoxious
arrogant twit who doesn't know what he is talking about.

Can't remember why I removed you from my kill file once. Guarantee it
won't happen again.

*plonk*

Real men don't advertise their kill file.

--
NOUN:1. Money or property bequeathed to another by will. 2. Something handed
down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past: a legacy of
religious freedom. ETYMOLOGY: MidE legacie, office of a deputy, from OF,
from ML legatia, from L legare, to depute, bequeath. www.bartleby.com/61/

[Default User]

Jack Klein wrote:

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:56:38 -0500, "Steven T. Hatton"
<ch********@germania.supwrote in comp.lang.c++:

Here's one minor point to consider: Being an obnoxious arrogant
twit who knows what he is talking about is far superior to being an
obnoxious arrogant twit who doesn't know what he is talking about.

Can't remember why I removed you from my kill file once. Guarantee it
won't happen again.

*plonk*

He never left mine. Generally, once a jerk, always a jerk.

Brian

[Noah Roberts]

Steven T. Hatton wrote:

The silence of certain knowledgeable others regarding this thread is
sufficient to convince me that some do get it.

This is interesting logic you are using. You ask a question and the
only people replying are those asking you to clarify the question. You
take the fact that the question was never answered to mean that some
people know what you where asking and only those who tried to help
don't know anything...

Like I said, interesting logic; rather facinating really.

[Steven T. Hatton]

Noah Roberts wrote:

>
Steven T. Hatton wrote:

>The silence of certain knowledgeable others regarding this thread is
sufficient to convince me that some do get it.

This is interesting logic you are using. You ask a question and the
only people replying are those asking you to clarify the question. You
take the fact that the question was never answered to mean that some
people know what you where asking and only those who tried to help
don't know anything...

Like I said, interesting logic; rather facinating really.

This is the message I sent to IBM this morning.

<quote>
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infoce...ame_hiding.htm
Please relay this message to the appropriate authority so that the problem
will be addressed.

I am very grateful to IBM for making this excellent documentation available
to the public. While I was reading through the C++ language reference I
discovered a subtle yet significant error in one of the examples. The
subsection titled _Name hiding (C++ only)_ uses the term "using
declaration" to denote what is properly called a "using directive".

ISO/IEC 14882-2003 defines the term "using declaration" in §7.3.3,
and "using directive" in §7.3.4. The distinction is subtle, and many C++
programmers are not aware that it exists. That ignorance is reflected in
their programming style. A "using declaration" is usually superior to
a "using directive", but many do not even appreciate the distinction.

If such an authoritative reference as the AIX Compiler C++ Language
Reference does not make this distinction clear, and does not use the
terminology correctly, it is quite understandable that programmers who rely
on it will incorrectly understand the terminology.

Please review my observations to verify their correctness, and take what
action you deem appropriate to address this matter.
</quote>
--
NOUN:1. Money or property bequeathed to another by will. 2. Something handed
down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past: a legacy of
religious freedom. ETYMOLOGY: MidE legacie, office of a deputy, from OF,
from ML legatia, from L legare, to depute, bequeath. www.bartleby.com/61/

[Noah Roberts]

Steven T. Hatton wrote:

ISO/IEC 14882-2003 defines the term "using declaration" in §7.3.3,
and "using directive" in §7.3.4. The distinction is subtle, and many C++
programmers are not aware that it exists. That ignorance is reflected in
their programming style. A "using declaration" is usually superior to
a "using directive", but many do not even appreciate the distinction.

Jeesh, you had your answer a long time ago:

Howard wrote:
Ok, so he said "using declaration" when he should have said "using
directive". Why not just say that up front? Quit acting like a troll
and
get to your point, or you'll find it very lonely here.
Your reply was the extremely rude:
The official IBM AIX C++ language reference has it wrong. Trying to
spell
out the point I am making would be moot. Either you get it our you
don't.

Here's one minor point to consider: Being an obnoxious arrogant twit
who
knows what he is talking about is far superior to being an obnoxious
arrogant twit who doesn't know what he is talking about.
Which understandibly left many thinking you must mean something else.

Now the point finally becomes clear...you're a jerk.

I will keep all of this in mind next time.

[Steven T. Hatton]

Noah Roberts wrote:

>
Steven T. Hatton wrote:

>ISO/IEC 14882-2003 defines the term "using declaration" in §7.3.3,
and "using directive" in §7.3.4. The distinction is subtle, and many C++
programmers are not aware that it exists. That ignorance is reflected in
their programming style. A "using declaration" is usually superior to
a "using directive", but many do not even appreciate the distinction.

Jeesh, you had your answer a long time ago:

Howard wrote:
Ok, so he said "using declaration" when he should have said "using
directive". Why not just say that up front? Quit acting like a troll
and
get to your point, or you'll find it very lonely here.
Your reply was the extremely rude:
The official IBM AIX C++ language reference has it wrong. Trying to
spell
out the point I am making would be moot. Either you get it our you
don't.

Here's one minor point to consider: Being an obnoxious arrogant twit
who
knows what he is talking about is far superior to being an obnoxious
arrogant twit who doesn't know what he is talking about.
Which understandibly left many thinking you must mean something else.

Now the point finally becomes clear...you're a jerk.

I will keep all of this in mind next time.

This really has nothing to do with C++. The topic of this newsgroup is C++,
not me. If you have a complaint with me, take it off line.
--
NOUN:1. Money or property bequeathed to another by will. 2. Something handed
down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past: a legacy of
religious freedom. ETYMOLOGY: MidE legacie, office of a deputy, from OF,
from ML legatia, from L legare, to depute, bequeath. www.bartleby.com/61/

[Howard]

"Steven T. Hatton" <ch********@germania.supwrote in message
news:De******************************@speakeasy.ne t...

Noah Roberts wrote:

>Here's one minor point to consider: Being an obnoxious arrogant twit
who
knows what he is talking about is far superior to being an obnoxious
arrogant twit who doesn't know what he is talking about.
Which understandibly left many thinking you must mean something else.

Now the point finally becomes clear...you're a jerk.

I will keep all of this in mind next time.

This really has nothing to do with C++. The topic of this newsgroup is
C++,
not me. If you have a complaint with me, take it off line.

And your "minor point to consider" _was_ related to C++? As I said before,
it's going to get very lonely around here for you...

[Steven T. Hatton]

Howard wrote:

>
"Steven T. Hatton" <ch********@germania.supwrote in message
news:De******************************@speakeasy.ne t...

>Noah Roberts wrote:

>>Here's one minor point to consider: Being an obnoxious arrogant twit
who
knows what he is talking about is far superior to being an obnoxious
arrogant twit who doesn't know what he is talking about.
Which understandibly left many thinking you must mean something else.

Now the point finally becomes clear...you're a jerk.

I will keep all of this in mind next time.

This really has nothing to do with C++. The topic of this newsgroup is
C++,
not me. If you have a complaint with me, take it off line.

And your "minor point to consider" _was_ related to C++? As I said
before, it's going to get very lonely around here for you...

You crossed the line with me a long time ago. Please refrain from
addressing me in the future.
--
NOUN:1. Money or property bequeathed to another by will. 2. Something handed
down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past: a legacy of
religious freedom. ETYMOLOGY: MidE legacie, office of a deputy, from OF,
from ML legatia, from L legare, to depute, bequeath. www.bartleby.com/61/

[Howard]

"Steven T. Hatton" <ch********@germania.supwrote in message
news:4r******************************@speakeasy.ne t...

Howard wrote:

>>
"Steven T. Hatton" <ch********@germania.supwrote in message
news:De******************************@speakeasy.n et...

>>Noah Roberts wrote:

>>>Here's one minor point to consider: Being an obnoxious arrogant twit
who
knows what he is talking about is far superior to being an obnoxious
arrogant twit who doesn't know what he is talking about.
Which understandibly left many thinking you must mean something else.

Now the point finally becomes clear...you're a jerk.

I will keep all of this in mind next time.
This really has nothing to do with C++. The topic of this newsgroup is
C++,
not me. If you have a complaint with me, take it off line.

And your "minor point to consider" _was_ related to C++? As I said
before, it's going to get very lonely around here for you...

You crossed the line with me a long time ago. Please refrain from
addressing me in the future.

:-D