Den mån 16 dec. 2019 15:16Stefan Neubert <[email protected]> skrev:
> > On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 21:57, Roland Hughes <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On 12/14/19 2:54 PM, Massimiliano Maini wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 15:12, Roland Hughes > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > > > On 12/9/19 5:00 AM, Massimiliano Maini wrote: > > > On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 19:41, Max Paperno<[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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! > Well said. I think most of us on this list have a pretty well-developed Roland filter at this point. It's sad that we have to, but unfortunately one can't simply kick someone out for being obnoxious. I agree with you. Whenever Roland comes around, press "Already read" and go do something productive instead, because engaging with that troll is anything but. Elvis > Stefan > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest >
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
