Carl Daniel wrote:
[...]
> I think you're spot-on, and the Brittish would say. Isn't posting something
> to usenet considered to put that posting into the public domain?
No.
> While boost is a mailing list, it's also being mirrored onto an NNTP server,
> and onto more than one web-based sear
Victor A. Wagner, Jr. writes:
> when the sex of the entity is unknown, in English the male pronouns shall
> be used.
And my wife thinks it laughable whenever she sees articles on computer-related
topics refer to an unknown programmer or user as "she". To do so is just
incorrect, unless it is in
"Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm all for bending over backwards to protect Booster's intellectual
> property rights, but I having a lot of trouble applying IP concepts to
such
> a posting. Am I off-base here?
I think you're spot
Thorsten Ottosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm...
>
> a lot of energy wasted on whether to use he or she. So lets waste some more
> time...
No, let's not. This discussion has gone off-topic for Boost, so if you
want to discuss it further, please take it to private email.
Thanks
David Abraham
Hmm...
a lot of energy wasted on whether to use he or she. So lets waste some more
time...
Here in Denmark the correct way to refer to a person (of both genders) in
a representative sense is simply "he". Nobody is foolish enough to think
its literally a man.
So if the persons gender is unknown,
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> how does that make Victor's point?
>
> Historically, the masculine gender was used to denote an anonymous
> person, with no intended messag
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [...]
> how does that make Victor's point?
Historically, the masculine gender was used to denote an anonymous
person, with no intended message about the superiority of any gender.
It isn't until ve
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> Oh! I have never ever heard that term before!! Thanks for explaining
>> it to me!!!
>
> Umm...my sarcasm detector is giving me an ambiguous
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [...]
> Oh! I have never ever heard that term before!! Thanks for explaining
> it to me!!!
Umm...my sarcasm detector is giving me an ambiguous reading... :(
> Without that explanation, I'm sure I
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> asausf$r0r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:asausf$r0r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> However, when talking about a specific individual, and not an anonymous
>> person, I think it is quite appropriate to
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > PC run amok
>>
>> No, you can't blame that on a malfunctioning PC. That was just me
>> b
when the sex of the entity is unknown, in English the male pronouns shall
be used. Or so the good sisters of St. Francis taught us in grade school.
The assumption (and we ALL know how to parse assume) that an entity is
female w/ no further information is wrong no matter your Political
Correctne
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
asausf$r0r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:asausf$r0r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [...]
> However, when talking about a specific individual, and not an anonymous
> person, I think it is quite appropriate to use the correct gender, if it
is
> known.
> [...]
A
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > PC run amok
>
> No, you can't blame that on a malfunctioning PC. That was just me
> being intentionally considerate.
In this case, I suspec
From: "Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 21:20:14 +0200, "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >> Now I have to put on my inference hat.
> >>
> >> ...so the use of identity<> assures that we have a non-deduced
> >> cont
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 21:20:14 +0200, "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Now I have to put on my inference hat.
>>
>> ...so the use of identity<> assures that we have a non-deduced
>> context, which causes the explicit template parameter to be re
Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:15:21 -0500, David Abrahams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Thoughts?
>
>
> This is one... A nice thing about the problem you are talking about is
> that any function having a parameter of type T is in fact a general
> "detector"
Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:48:01 +0200, "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>> Here's what I think might be a correct implementation:
>>>
>>> template T implicit_cast(U const& x) { return x; }
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:15:21 -0500, David Abrahams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Thoughts?
This is one... A nice thing about the problem you are talking about is
that any function having a parameter of type T is in fact a general
"detector" of convertibility to T (It's also worth noting that it
de
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:48:01 +0200, "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Here's what I think might be a correct implementation:
>>
>> template T implicit_cast(U const& x) { return x; }
>> template T implicit_cast(U& x) { return x; }
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:48:01 +0200, "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Here's what I think might be a correct implementation:
>>
>> template T implicit_cast(U const& x) { return x; }
>> template T implicit_cast(U& x) { return x; }
21 matches
Mail list logo
