search for: wishy

...to write 'isMyConditionTrue()'? Or 'bool &x = I->isMyConditionTrue'? Or something else? I have no idea. Warnings and other things can help reduce the likelihood of this becoming a live bug, but it still makes the code harder to read IMO. This is exactly why I was making the wishy-washy statement about instance variables. This is the pattern that I tend to prefer: class Something { bool IsMyConditionTrue; … bool isMyConditionTrue() const { return IsMyConditionTrue; } } If you make instance variables be lower camel case, then you get serious conflict between ivars a...

...'bool &x = >> I->isMyConditionTrue'? Or something else? I have no idea. Warnings and >> other things can help reduce the likelihood of this becoming a live bug, >> but it still makes the code harder to read IMO. >> >> This is exactly why I was making the wishy-washy statement about instance >> variables. This is the pattern that I tend to prefer: >> >> >> class Something { >> bool IsMyConditionTrue; >> >> … >> >> bool isMyConditionTrue() const { return IsMyConditionTrue; } >> } >> &gt...

...>> >> Compiled with -mfma -ffast-math, this generates fma(x, y, x). Even >> though this transform superficially appears to use distributivity, >> that’s somewhat debatable because the fma computes the whole result >> without any intermediate rounding, so it’s pretty wishy-washy to say >> that it’s been used here. > > It most definitely has been used here, because of inf/nan behavior. > > inf*(0 + 1) == inf > inf*0 + inf == nan > > (I actually fixed this bug in the past because it occurred in practice.) Thanks Nicolai and Steve for the i...

Dear LLVM developers, I have a question on the fast-math floating-point optimizations applied by LLVM: Judging by the documentation at https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#fast-math-flags I understood that rewriting with associativity and using reciprocal computations are possible optimizations. As the folklore description of fast-math is that it "applies real-valued identities", I

On May 2, 2008, at 2:23 PM, me22 wrote: [...] > I suppose the most important issue is what constitutes "observable > behavior". 1.9/6: «The observable behavior of the abstract machine is its sequence of reads and writes to volatile data and calls to library I/O functions. [ Footnote 6: An implementation can offer additional library I/O functions as an extension.

...t;isMyConditionTrue'? Or something else? I have no idea. Warnings and >>>> other things can help reduce the likelihood of this becoming a live bug, >>>> but it still makes the code harder to read IMO. >>>> >>>> This is exactly why I was making the wishy-washy statement about >>>> instance variables. This is the pattern that I tend to prefer: >>>> >>>> >>>> class Something { >>>> bool IsMyConditionTrue; >>>> >>>> … >>>> >>>> bool isMyCon...

> If we are going to change how we name variables, I very much want them to > not collide with either type names or function names. My suggestion would be > "lower_case" names. > > This also happens to be the vastly most common pattern across all C++ coding > styles and C-based language coding styles I have seen. STL has "lower_case" functions, and exposes

...y just don't care to understand anything technical with FC-RHEL development and focus, and just get things dead wrong. Especially things that have redistribution and/or licensing issues, or the fact that sooner or later, newer versions have to be adopted. In fact, many people seem to be "wishy washy" on whether Red Hat should "hold back/backport" or "adopt newer" releases. The reality is that Red Hat doesn't ship anything in RHEL that hasn't been through Fedora Core prior (with rare exception, like MySQL 4 in RHEL4 that wasn't in FC2/FC3 -- kinda sho...

...ed with -mfma -ffast-math, this generates fma(x, y, x). Even >>>> though this transform superficially appears to use distributivity, >>>> that’s somewhat debatable because the fma computes the whole result >>>> without any intermediate rounding, so it’s pretty wishy-washy to say >>>> that it’s been used here. >>> >>> It most definitely has been used here, because of inf/nan behavior. >>> >>> inf*(0 + 1) == inf >>> inf*0 + inf == nan >>> >>> (I actually fixed this bug in the past becaus...

I''m working on writing features for a wizard. The wizard collects information from a number of different forms, and you can navigate through it in a number of ways. Anyhow one of these forms is a customer form collecting name, and email. In the context of the wizard I feel that the following scenarios Scenario: Given I step to customer And I fill in my customer details

Where are we going? It's time to start thinking ahead and really figure out how to make Compiz survive, specially in lieu of Dennis' suggestion. The reality is that there has been the equivalent of no progress since the merge. We've basically only been in maintenance mode. The reason for this, from my point of view, is a complete lack of direction and leadership. We've