Conversion from UTF32 to UTF8 for review
in [MFC]
|
From: Liviu on 3 Jun 2010 11:13 "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote... > On 6/3/2010 12:57 AM, Liviu wrote: >> "Peter Olcott"<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote... >>> On 6/2/2010 11:10 PM, Liviu wrote: >>>> "Peter Olcott"<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote... >>>>> On 6/2/2010 6:26 PM, Liviu wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> By the way, did you fix the validation bug still present in the >>>>>> latest code you submitted in the other thread? >>>>> >>>>> There was no validation bug that I am aware of >>>> >>>> Go back and read again my last post there. >>> >>> The current code (that I just posted) is to the best of my knowledge >>> entirely correct in every way. >> >> Don't know and don't really care about your "current code (that I >> just posted)". My point, as clearly stated, was about your previous >> code from 3+ days ago where the bug definitely existed. After I >> brought that up, you still repeated in other posts that "it worked >> correctly" (with the expected "typo" excuses, of course). >> >> I don't see how your new claim now, that the just modified code >> "is to the best of my knowledge entirely correct in every way", >> has any bearing on the particular point that you are either obtuse >> or disingenuous about that previous bug, and your awareness of it. > > You could simply look at the current code How would that matter in any way, relative to what I was saying about the _old_ code? > and see if what you considered to be a bug is no longer there. Congratulations, you just fixed it (though FWIW last night's .h file still had the bug). Guess I should take it as a personal favor, since you make it sound like it wasn't an actual bug, but only something "I" considered to be a bug ;-) > If not it would seem that you are just trying to be argumentative. That must be Peter-speak for "thank you". And, btw, today is the one week anniversary of the first buggiest revision you posted. If your 5% estimate for debugging is correct, then you must have worked on this code since, like, January ;-). Liviu
From: Peter Olcott on 3 Jun 2010 11:41 On 6/3/2010 10:13 AM, Liviu wrote: > "Peter Olcott"<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote... >> On 6/3/2010 12:57 AM, Liviu wrote: >> You could simply look at the current code > > How would that matter in any way, relative to what I was saying > about the _old_ code? > >> and see if what you considered to be a bug is no longer there. > > Congratulations, you just fixed it (though FWIW last night's .h file > still had the bug). Guess I should take it as a personal favor, > since you make it sound like it wasn't an actual bug, but only > something "I" considered to be a bug ;-) > >> If not it would seem that you are just trying to be argumentative. > > That must be Peter-speak for "thank you". > > And, btw, today is the one week anniversary of the first buggiest > revision you posted. If your 5% estimate for debugging is correct, > then you must have worked on this code since, like, January ;-). > > Liviu > > Fixing this "bug" required zero debugging. I analytically determined the imperfection and corrected it without any trial-and-error at all. To be perfectly honest this tiny little imperfection would most aptly be classified as a bug.
From: Peter Olcott on 3 Jun 2010 11:50 >> You could simply look at the current code > > How would that matter in any way, relative to what I was saying > about the _old_ code? > >> and see if what you considered to be a bug is no longer there. > > Congratulations, you just fixed it (though FWIW last night's .h file > still had the bug). Guess I should take it as a personal favor, > since you make it sound like it wasn't an actual bug, but only > something "I" considered to be a bug ;-) Some people could have considered the missing feature of not rejecting Surrogates a bug. If I had not already mentioned this limitation as a required future enhancement, they would have been right. > >> If not it would seem that you are just trying to be argumentative. > > That must be Peter-speak for "thank you". > > And, btw, today is the one week anniversary of the first buggiest > revision you posted. If your 5% estimate for debugging is correct, > then you must have worked on this code since, like, January ;-). > > Liviu > > I would bet that even the first version that I posted was far more bug free than most people could produce with zero testing.
From: Pete Delgado on 3 Jun 2010 13:46 "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message news:sfSdnTGTyIk3UJvRnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > On 6/2/2010 2:57 PM, Pete Delgado wrote: >> "Peter Olcott"<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message >> news:qbednWXw38bMkJjRnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >>> Since no one else here thinks that my code is anything like abysmal that >>> shows that there is something else going on besides an objective >>> assessment of the quality of my code. >> >> I think that it would be a mistake on your part to assume that the >> quality >> of your code is not suspect just because you have not gotten an abundance >> of >> posts stating that fact. You have already demonstrated an extraordinary >> lack >> of receptiveness to constructive criticism, so why would any of us >> continue >> to beat our heads against the wall? >> >> -Pete >> >> > After correcting three typos it worked correctly the first time. This is > the most objective measure of quality. The above statement is demonstrably false unless one has a very loose definition of "worked correctly". Perhaps you mean to say that it worked "as intended" with the inclusion of infinite loops, but saying that it worked "correctly" is simply a falsehood since the original code did not do what you had suggested that it would do. In addition, you have already given us your standards of code quality, none of which your code seems to meet, so it appears that rather than "fix" your code, you have "fixed" your quality metrics. I suppose that I am being rather generous since it appears to me that this really was not "your code" at all, but rather a derived work from someone else. This makes it all the more humorous because you have placed a copyright on the code! -Pete
From: Peter Olcott on 3 Jun 2010 14:11
On 6/3/2010 12:46 PM, Pete Delgado wrote: > "Peter Olcott"<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message > news:sfSdnTGTyIk3UJvRnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> On 6/2/2010 2:57 PM, Pete Delgado wrote: >>> "Peter Olcott"<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message >>> news:qbednWXw38bMkJjRnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>> >>>> Since no one else here thinks that my code is anything like abysmal that >>>> shows that there is something else going on besides an objective >>>> assessment of the quality of my code. >>> >>> I think that it would be a mistake on your part to assume that the >>> quality >>> of your code is not suspect just because you have not gotten an abundance >>> of >>> posts stating that fact. You have already demonstrated an extraordinary >>> lack >>> of receptiveness to constructive criticism, so why would any of us >>> continue >>> to beat our heads against the wall? >>> >>> -Pete >>> >>> >> After correcting three typos it worked correctly the first time. This is >> the most objective measure of quality. > > The above statement is demonstrably false unless one has a very loose > definition of "worked correctly". Perhaps you mean to say that it worked "as > intended" with the inclusion of infinite loops, but saying that it worked > "correctly" is simply a falsehood since the original code did not do what > you had suggested that it would do. You just are not taking the meaning of my words precisely enough. To say that person X is the richest person in the world besides person Y is exactly and precisely the same thing as saying that person X is the second richest person in the world. Besides the typos there were no infinite loops. This is saying exactly and precisely the same thing as the statement that the infinite loop was caused by a typographical error. The reasoning (semantics) used to produce the code was correct. The (syntax) specification of that reasoning was incorrect The only actual (semantic) logic error was corrected last night when I gave the code a final analysis. > > In addition, you have already given us your standards of code quality, none > of which your code seems to meet, so it appears that rather than "fix" your > code, you have "fixed" your quality metrics. > > I suppose that I am being rather generous since it appears to me that this > really was not "your code" at all, but rather a derived work from someone > else. This makes it all the more humorous because you have placed a > copyright on the code! > > -Pete > > Whose code is it derived from liar? I have seventeen pages of design documents some of which I posted to this forum shortly after creating this thread. The final code mostly conforms to this original design. |