inheriting from std::vector bad practice?

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Leigh Johnston:

Deriving from a container might be bad for *certain* cases but not for
*all* cases. Derivation is a tool which comes with caveats like most
tools. Interface augmentation is not bad and I have given two perfectly
valid examples of it.

True.

I was talking about the OP's actual case and his explanation of it, not the
misleading title that he put on the thread (what he imagined could be bad).


Cheers,

- Alf

 

[Nick Keighley]

* Nick Keighley:



I said a statement was bullshit, and it was.

You're saying I said someone is bullshitting.

it seems an overly fine distinction to me. It was a person that made
the statement.

That is at best misleading, since
it is a statement about a person. But considering what you're writing below,
which is a pure personal attack, I think you intended also the above as such.

In other words, you're trolling.

as I said there seems to be some sort of culture thing here. Rudeness
only seems to be allowed in one direction.

It has been explained in detail by several posters in this thread (including
contributions from me).

If that's not good enough for you, then pick up any good book on design.


OK, "we" => you're schizoid or have grand delusions of being royal,

or I think other people in a similar position to me might have a
similar opinion. So people who don't agree with you are bullshitters,
trolls, schizoid and have delusions. Gosh I'd hate to come across you
when you being intentionally rude!

"your
god-like authority" => you're a troll, and a pretty stupid one to try to make
that argument in this group.

you just came across as "this is bad design because I say so". I
(politely asked for a longer explanation (isn't this news group for
discussions about C++/OOD?)) and got my head bitten off. I'm guessing
you and the other guy have some sort of history which I stepped into
the cross-fire of.

HAND

 

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Nick Keighley:

trolling

plink

- Alf

 

[James Kanze]

On 8 Apr, 11:11, "Alf P. Steinbach" <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]

must be a cultural thing. Where I'm from its rude. I'm not
saying I wouldn't use it but I'd use it knowing I was being
rude. It seems odd to me to tell someone they are bullshitting
and then complain of rudeness when they say you are full of
shit!

Even within a given culture, rude is relative. There's a
differnce, for example, between saying that a given statement is
bullshit (attacking the statement) and saying that a given
person is full of shit (attacking the person). As for the word
"bullshit" itself, whether it's rude probably depends on the
environment where it is used: words that are perfectly
acceptable between the boys down at the pub might be considered
rude when used in an employee evaluation, for example.

FWIW: the tone in newgroups is a lot closer to that of the pub
than it is to a formal reunion. I'll use words and expressions
here that I won't necessarily use in other contexts.

 

[James Kanze]

On 06/04/2010 22:55, James Kanze wrote:

[...]

I guess it depends on your definition of "well written Java",

Certainly. When you get down to it, I'd guess that well written
Java is even rarer than well written C++. (And of course, the
real question is: how well written is well written?. For my
statement to be true, you do have to set the standards very,
very high.)

but --
really? A cursory glance I just did through the docs for a number of
classes in the Java standard libraries (which I'm assuming can at least
to some extent be considered well written Java) didn't turn up any final
methods at all. From what I remember from when I was using Java more
frequently (roughly 3 years ago now), it was quite rare to want to make
methods or classes final. Have I been missing out on received wisdom
somewhere along the line?

In the Java libraries, you'll find classes final more often than
methods. I suspect that this is partially due to Java's broken
access qualifiers, but in practice, I can remember more than a
few times having problems with classes that should have had
final methods, or have been final, but didn't or won't.
(java.awt.Dimension comes immediately to mind---in general, any
class which represents a concrete value should probably be
final and immutable.)

 

[Nick Keighley]

* Kai-Uwe Bux:

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

* NickKeighley:
* Leigh Johnston:
* Leigh Johnston:
* Alf P. Steinbach:
* Leigh Johnston: [...]
and Bjarne Stroustrup agrees.
This is just an appeal to authority.
I've never quite understood why it is wrong to quote people that might
know something about a subject
See <url:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html>.

I love the irony of citing an authority on the appeal to authority fallacy.
That's just a great display of wit.

Sorry, it was unintentional humor. It's just a reference with the requested
information.

I wasn't requesting information, I was doubting it was a fallacy in
this case.

No, you have to read on, or see the Wikipedia article.

However I think you're right that the argument wasn't the fallacy that's known
as "appeal to authority" (as I wrote that it was), although it was literally
appealing to authority.

It was more like a combination of stating that situation A is an unrelated but
in some respects similar situation B, and that a generalized and misleading
paraphrase of authority X's comments about a situation C similar to B, applies
to A  --  anyone who cares who to identify all the fallacies involved has my
respect as fallacy-hunter.

Cheers & hth.,

- Alf (evidently not an authority on fallacies, names of)-

 

[Nick Keighley]

* NickKeighley:


plink

can't recall the last time this happened
and I thought clc was rough...