Received: from nobody by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1iUBlj-0003Hv-2p for lojban-newreal@lojban.org; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 07:38:19 -0800 Received: from me.stampabout.com ([69.162.83.54]:38879) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1iUBlg-0003HA-Sg for lojban@lojban.org; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 07:38:18 -0800 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=ijfo; d=stampabout.com; h=Message-ID:From:To:Reply-To:MIME-Version:Subject:Content-Type:Date; i=violet@stampabout.com; bh=L1QO+vCrGVZTgjnOF5uVD4T5w9A=; b=EeshpPUZcoFBFs4p/J9UTdcKsynYSfRKcmM7VAt2fI3c9jvah1mZJaDyeJ0CKJLsnp01DEivj1+K i0+CXYK4PKnKvrdLXDLIF7m6cQC2rwSv5bM03fkea76fMDvRGmXxUzDrNyAZ8N5H+hToEIFTJgk/ okcAfrFPIHrCT2/k/us= Message-ID: <015qC.LfhT4iHDN.a7QqUUUzb3dMt7T43pm.841529190@me.stampabout.com> From: Violet To: lojban@lojban.org Reply-To: Violet MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: =?UTF-8?B?VGhlIDQgd2VlayBwbGFuIHRvIGRyb3AgMzVsYiBiZWZvcmUgU3VtbWVy?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="---3zsblqzroqg.9sr1p23c0co-" Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 10:34:54 -0500 X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+) X-Spam_score: 1.6 X-Spam_score_int: 16 X-Spam_bar: + X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Yes, that is right. Lojban. Meeting dates hav e changed. Let me know about the other changes that are coming up next week. We can move the dates back by 5 hours but not sure that is the way to go. I w [...] Content analysis details: (1.6 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID_EF Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 1.9 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% [cf: 100] 0.9 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) 0.8 FSL_BULK_SIG Bulk signature with no Unsubscribe 0.0 T_REMOTE_IMAGE Message contains an external image -----3zsblqzroqg.9sr1p23c0co- Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Yes, that is right. Lojban. Meeting dates hav e changed. Let me know about the other changes that are coming up next week. We can move the dates back by 5 hours but not sure that is the way to go. I will be there with the reports. a good outlawe, and dyde pore men moch god." to me this seems to indicate that robin hood robbed people with bad atudes or reputations, avoiding the poorest but not necessarily targeting the richest, and in some part used that wealth charitably. that kinda ruins the narrative though lol not necessarily. the government was sitting on a hoard of wealth in order to preserve its own Hi Lojban. http://www.stampabout.com/today/november/2019-8520341951staB8LgNR4Sl9pWlrF%2BDMGMtyo3ZqFr4CnhrERmbeUEF1vLXBN4xcAdtTGUSXmF3QF65KpJjpdAmZdQe4foT0qDeQ%3D%3Dmpa/home --==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--== http://b.stampabout.com/ Handy reading:What are copy elision and return value optimization? (http://koj.stampabout.com/) user4581301 (http://ree.stampabout.com/) Oct 22 at 14:15 (http://frw.stampabout.com/) * --==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--== A prime example of why side effects in destructors should be used very carefully, if at all.Matthew Read (http://ert.stampabout.com/) Oct 22 at 17:24 (http://fde.stampabout.com/) * 1 On the subject of whenreturnhappens,until C++14 (http://aaq.stampabout.com/) (!) the wording forreturndidn't say that local temporaries lasted long enough to be used in constructing the return value.Davis Herring (http://ewe.stampabout.com/) Oct 23 at 4:54 (http://vft.stampabout.com/) * @MatthewRead: What you actually try to say is that whole RAII concept needs to be avoided?Micha o (http://ccs.stampabout.com/) Oct 23 at 5:25 (http://sds.stampabout.com/) * 1 @Michao no. RAII concept actually ignores side-effects.Perfect RAII code doesn't have any code in constructors except initialization. Side-effect is something that is changed by constructoroutsideof object. But life is never perfectSwift - Friday Pie (http://dfg.stampabout.com/) Oct 23 at 8:59 (http://ffw.stampabout.com/) * @Swift-FridayPie So how does the unique_ptr works? What it does in destructor?Micha o (http://ccs.stampabout.com/) Oct 23 at 9:10 (http://plo.stampabout.com/) * @Michao actually , good example where elision allows something unexpected. You can't copy unique_ptr, but you can return it, exactly because of copy elision.Swift - Friday Pie (http://dfg.stampabout.com/) Oct 23 at 9:14 (http://dnr.stampabout.com/) * --==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--== It would be not destroyed if not due to copy-elision, then due to move-semantics (new moved to object would take pointer, and destructor of old object would ignore it's null pointer, but it would be called after all). What I want to say is that in RAII-handler, what destructor does is more important than what constructor does.Micha o (http://ccs.stampabout.com/) Oct 23 at 9:18 (http://ddj.stampabout.com/) * @Michao no, notreturn std::move(pointer), but alsoreturn pointer;and it works without move semantic active, Copy elision is in some way an optimization of move semantics on its own, when you don't really need a temporal object. It never existed, so there was no extra resource acquisition, so there is nothing to destroy. Only case when it hurts RAII is when "resource acquisition" treated as "interface ownership", which was a point of argument for a while.Swift - Friday Pie (http://dfg.stampabout.com/) Oct 23 at 9:21 (http://fwa.stampabout.com/) -----3zsblqzroqg.9sr1p23c0co- Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Meeting dates and times: Nov 18, 22, Confirmation #841529190-5187284
Yes, that is right. Lojban. Meeting dates hav e changed. Let me know about the other changes that are coming up next week. We can move the dates back by 5 hours but not sure that is the way to go. I will be there with the reports. a good outlawe, and dyde pore men moch god." to me this seems to indicate that robin hood robbed people with bad atudes or reputations, avoiding the poorest but not necessarily targeting the richest, and in some part used that wealth charitably. that kinda ruins the narrative though lol not necessarily. the government was sitting on a hoard of wealth in order to preserve its own
-----3zsblqzroqg.9sr1p23c0co---