Ok, I found the article. I was fairly "back-asswards" in my remembrance of it (I even got the author wrong). It was actually Herb Sutter, and he argues that there *is* specialization, but not partial (which, I think, is what you stated). Interesting read, though.
http://www.gotw.ca/publications/mill17.htm
Your are correct about the first form of partial specialization. I wasn't thinking about this form because, as you said, it doesn't apply to functions.
You have to be careful with functions with the term specialization. The word is overloaded (no pun intended). It can mean (1) template specialization or (2) in dealing with overloaded functions, the compiler chooses the more "specialized" form. Other than partial specialization (as in with pointers), there is really no template specialization with function. Scott Meyers had a really great article on why this is true in (I believe) "The C/C++ Users Journel" several months back. I, too, thought function templates were specialized until I read it. Hopely, its available somewhere online. He even showed how just changing the order between overloaded versions would change with one the compiler would use.
DrX
You completely misintepreted what I said. I did not say there is no partial specialization for functions; there is. What I said is there is no full specialization for functions, and there's isn't. There is overloading and what is called "explicit specification." See "The C++ Programming Language", by Stroustrup, 3rd Edition section 13.3.
Again, there is no partial specialization what so ever in his examples. Partial specialization involves pointers and references to unknown types. Of which there is none in the examples. Partial specialization does not mean part of full specialization. They are two different animals.
Not true. There is no partial specialization in the two examples. The poster is correct: there is no full function specialization in C++. There is partial specialization, dealing with pointer and reference types, and there is overloading. Functions are not fully specialized. That is for classes only.
I have a large stash of porn (18.8 million videos) that I need to move. If you will assist me, I will compensate you with 15% of them. Note that this will not include my collector's edition of "Debbie Does Dishes."
Mr Hansome Man
How you you really *know* your computer has been comprimised? I keep my A/V up-to-date. I repeatedly run it, adaware, and spybot. I use both a hardware and software firewalls. I run windows xp and have tuned off most everything such as messanger (both the chat tool and the net send service). I am paranoid as hell about getting cracked and someone sending crap like this through my cable. But unless one of the above programs screams at me, I really wouldn't know if I've been compromised. Zone Alarm use to catch a lot of funky crap (incoming probes) until I started using a Linksys firewall router. How do I know if I am really safe? I'm a software guy, but never really been a network guy (other than writing socket code for embedded systems). Scary stuff.
From the article:
At that Q&A session, SCO Senior Vice President Chris Sontag said there are millions of lines of offending code involved and that it's highly unlikely the matter could be resolved by removing that code.
Maybe you should take your own advise. From the article:
At that Q&A session, SCO Senior Vice President Chris Sontag said there are millions of lines of offending code involved and that it's highly unlikely the matter could be resolved by removing that code.
Yep. I remember logging on to CompuServe for $10/hr! Just to play Adventure (Colossal Cave) and the Scott Adams games I didn't have at the time. Oh, that hurt in the wallet.
Thank you. I didn't know there was a discrepancy. I was taught (about a billion years ago!) that the sum of the masses was equivalent to the mass of the neutron. Interesting...
there is no such thing as an anti-neutron
That depends on what theory you subscribe to. One theory states that a neutron is composed of an electron and a protron. This is backed up by three observations:
1) Its mass is equal to the sum of the two.
2) It has no net charge (the charges cancel).
3) When a neutron is split apart, an eletron was observed "flying out."
This is this true then although the net result is the same--a particle with no NET charge--a neutron and anti-neutron would still be different and still destroy each other.
What I don't get it this: How can they prove it? I mean what evidence do they really have? A few server logs? How can a text file that can be made up on the spot be proof of anything? How do you verify its authenticity?
I have the same question about emails used as evidence.
I don't in any why support SCO, but I don't understand: If they bought the rights to UNIX, but didn't get any copyrights or patents, what did they get? What else is there???
Amen, bother!
I was visiting a non-techie friend, and he was complaining that his new 2.0Ghz PC was "way to slow!" He had more spyware on there (including Bonzai) than I had ever seen. Between Adaware and Spybot (and my own search), I must have found over 200 hundred installations with about 40 instances running.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never used a Mac in my life, but his article seems to show a complete lack of OS knowledge or even basic logic.
So, they changed it. Big deal. Why would you want to watch the same story over again? Anyone having heart ache over this should get a life.
That has to be one the most intelligent responses I've read on Slashdot. My compliments.
Ok, I found the article. I was fairly "back-asswards" in my remembrance of it (I even got the author wrong). It was actually Herb Sutter, and he argues that there *is* specialization, but not partial (which, I think, is what you stated). Interesting read, though. http://www.gotw.ca/publications/mill17.htm
Your are correct about the first form of partial specialization. I wasn't thinking about this form because, as you said, it doesn't apply to functions. You have to be careful with functions with the term specialization. The word is overloaded (no pun intended). It can mean (1) template specialization or (2) in dealing with overloaded functions, the compiler chooses the more "specialized" form. Other than partial specialization (as in with pointers), there is really no template specialization with function. Scott Meyers had a really great article on why this is true in (I believe) "The C/C++ Users Journel" several months back. I, too, thought function templates were specialized until I read it. Hopely, its available somewhere online. He even showed how just changing the order between overloaded versions would change with one the compiler would use. DrX
You completely misintepreted what I said. I did not say there is no partial specialization for functions; there is. What I said is there is no full specialization for functions, and there's isn't. There is overloading and what is called "explicit specification." See "The C++ Programming Language", by Stroustrup, 3rd Edition section 13.3. Again, there is no partial specialization what so ever in his examples. Partial specialization involves pointers and references to unknown types. Of which there is none in the examples. Partial specialization does not mean part of full specialization. They are two different animals.
Not true. There is no partial specialization in the two examples. The poster is correct: there is no full function specialization in C++. There is partial specialization, dealing with pointer and reference types, and there is overloading. Functions are not fully specialized. That is for classes only.
I have a large stash of porn (18.8 million videos) that I need to move. If you will assist me, I will compensate you with 15% of them. Note that this will not include my collector's edition of "Debbie Does Dishes." Mr Hansome Man
of my first time playing Zork and my light went out!
How you you really *know* your computer has been comprimised? I keep my A/V up-to-date. I repeatedly run it, adaware, and spybot. I use both a hardware and software firewalls. I run windows xp and have tuned off most everything such as messanger (both the chat tool and the net send service). I am paranoid as hell about getting cracked and someone sending crap like this through my cable. But unless one of the above programs screams at me, I really wouldn't know if I've been compromised. Zone Alarm use to catch a lot of funky crap (incoming probes) until I started using a Linksys firewall router. How do I know if I am really safe? I'm a software guy, but never really been a network guy (other than writing socket code for embedded systems). Scary stuff.
The "I want you to die" reference is from James Bond.
.NET borg monkey? Ha ha ha! Can I use that?
Slander is verbal; libel is written.
From the article: At that Q&A session, SCO Senior Vice President Chris Sontag said there are millions of lines of offending code involved and that it's highly unlikely the matter could be resolved by removing that code.
Maybe you should take your own advise. From the article: At that Q&A session, SCO Senior Vice President Chris Sontag said there are millions of lines of offending code involved and that it's highly unlikely the matter could be resolved by removing that code.
Very well put my friend!
Yep. I remember logging on to CompuServe for $10/hr! Just to play Adventure (Colossal Cave) and the Scott Adams games I didn't have at the time. Oh, that hurt in the wallet.
Thank you. I didn't know there was a discrepancy. I was taught (about a billion years ago!) that the sum of the masses was equivalent to the mass of the neutron. Interesting...
Even though for you and me and normal matter, time slows down, light exists outside of and is not affected by time.
there is no such thing as an anti-neutron That depends on what theory you subscribe to. One theory states that a neutron is composed of an electron and a protron. This is backed up by three observations: 1) Its mass is equal to the sum of the two. 2) It has no net charge (the charges cancel). 3) When a neutron is split apart, an eletron was observed "flying out." This is this true then although the net result is the same--a particle with no NET charge--a neutron and anti-neutron would still be different and still destroy each other.
What I don't get it this: How can they prove it? I mean what evidence do they really have? A few server logs? How can a text file that can be made up on the spot be proof of anything? How do you verify its authenticity? I have the same question about emails used as evidence.
I don't in any why support SCO, but I don't understand: If they bought the rights to UNIX, but didn't get any copyrights or patents, what did they get? What else is there???
Amen, bother! I was visiting a non-techie friend, and he was complaining that his new 2.0Ghz PC was "way to slow!" He had more spyware on there (including Bonzai) than I had ever seen. Between Adaware and Spybot (and my own search), I must have found over 200 hundred installations with about 40 instances running.
Compiler companies have been writing their compilers to recognize particular benchmarks, and generate optimized code for them, for years.
I guess some companies DO listen to their customers. Glad to see it happen.