On 12/14/19 2:54 PM, Massimiliano Maini wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 15:12, Roland Hughes
> <rol...@logikalsolutions.com <mailto:rol...@logikalsolutions.com>> wrote:
>
> On 12/9/19 5:00 AM, Massimiliano Maini wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 19:41, Max Paperno<ma...@wdg.us
> <mailto:ma...@wdg.us>> wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/4/2019 9:31 AM, Roland Hughes wrote:
> >>> If you think auto won't be removed as a failed experiment, how
> about
> >> "new"? Deprecated in C++20 and slated for removal in C++23.
> >>> https://www.modernescpp.com/index.php/no-new-new
> >>> Some more reading on the removal of pointers
> >>>
> >>>
> https://www.fluentcpp.com/2018/04/01/cpp-will-no-longer-have-pointers/
> >> TL;DR: This was a 2018 April Fool's joke.
> >>
> > Ouch. That must hurt.
>
> Gosh no. I'm more stunned that only one person got it. That was an
> incredibly well written post. Everyone should read it. Too many QML
> users I guess.
>
>
> By pure chance I happen to occasionally read that blog
> ( https://www.fluentcpp.com/
> < https://www.fluentcpp.com/2018/04/01/cpp-will-no-longer-have-pointers/>;;;).
> Even by picking only two random articles anybody could see that the
> ideas it promotes
> are at the total opposite of yours.
>
> Let me speculate on how it went: you googled some random keywords,
> clicked on
> one of the top links pointing to a blog you've never heard of,
> overlooked the title and
> wrongly concluded that this just confirms you're right without
> noticing it was an April's
> fool.
>
> Now, trying to turn the whole thing in your favor is something not
> even a fool would try.
> But apparently you are willing to give it a go. Unsurprisingly, I'd say.
>
> Yawn.
>
You make the assumption that it wasn't deliberate. Not a safe assumption.
> Yeah, I make that assumption and I'm fairly comfortable in taking the associated (nanoscopic)
> risk.
> The day you want to start talking about your own assumptions with respect the competency
> level of anybody else than you on this mailing list, let us know.
> Other than that, I do hope the mailing list has an archive somewhere. On the off chance any
> newcomer gets impressd by your 200 lines, totally offtopic and rambling replies advocatng
> some crazy security policy or whatever.
First, @Massimiliano, the list archiv ist at https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/
Second, I want to thank all of you in the Qt community, for beeing open, friendly and competent.
This is the reason I take part in this mail list.
Now concerning the content, it is a pity, but every project has it´s Roland. Just remeber the discussion on QML.
After the first Mails about the Klocwork error, I was wondering, when Roland would drip in.
To share my strategy: When I feel that the goal of an email is to get attention and the author is known to
attach more importance to showmanship than to make a contribution, my solution is to
JUST IGNORE IT!
Stefan
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
