forophobia
-
Just read Andrew parkers nice boost intro. One sentence triggered a "prtogramiming question", with a line of thought better suited to this board: minimising the amount of times that users have to write their own loops Hello? Are we programmers or what? Look the framework we have to build to minimise (not remove, just "minimise") writing loops: iterators. const. unidirectional. bidirectional. reverse iterators. const or not. iterator adaptor. functors. binders. composers. bind. function. lambda library. anything I forgot? most likely. We need to templatize like hell, bending the compiler to a point where we are happy it makes it through our code alive - and when not, we don't dare ask for sensible error messages. To avoid what?
// deprecated, don't use:
// for(int i=0; iI tell you what: unless I can write
count_if(container, element > 0)
I stick with my loops.
Where does this fear come from? It looks like everybody is ooohing and aaahing the marvelous insights into the human being Dr Freud opened up for all of us, wondering how we could live without it so long, before noticing that he's a serious whacko who needs some true job instead of a leather couch.
I suspect one of the guys who miffed up the STL was seriously loopophobic. maybe his wife left him because of a loop. Maybe his child died in his arms because he was off by one. Maybe he saw his sister nekkid in the woods when he was five. We don't know. But he had something going. What would be necessary to eliminate loops? At least most of them? Mark them evil?
The recent round of job interviews - complete with "write some code please": the majority rather try to remember an omnious function they once heard of (or just make one up that doesn't exist), instead of touching a for loop.
It's a loop, for god's sake. It's not a bear trap, it's not the infamous goto-spaghetti mess, it's not a terrorist nuke we have to keep out of our code whatever sacrifice of sanity is necessary.
What can go wrong in a loop?
- you forget to increment
- you are off by one
- you invalidate the container or the iterator
The first requires some discipline, the second some basic calculus training, and the third heaven forbid thinking! whoo!
How many algorithms can you think of using a loop? Ten? Tenthousand? Guys, generalize looping, not the algorithm.
Introducing a generic container iteration syntax ("a container to be iterable must have b
-
BTW, when I do iterator loops, I use while loops;
container::iterator i = c.begin(), end = c.end();
while(i != end) {
// Do some funky stuff here
++i;
}. The for loop tends to become very kludgy when you define 2 variables in its initialization part. :) -- Denn du bist, was du isst! Und ihr wisst, was es ist! Es ist mein Teil...?
I'm actually trying to move on to an iterator pair, that acts like an iterator that knows it's end, so you can
for(iterpair it(container); it; ++it)
DoSomethingNastyTo(*it);Just got to roughen out the templates and make it an CP article... maybe tomnite - no, it rained the first time since weeksof a brutish heat. I'll have a walk down to the river.
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
sighist || Agile Programming | doxygen -
Just read Andrew parkers nice boost intro. One sentence triggered a "prtogramiming question", with a line of thought better suited to this board: minimising the amount of times that users have to write their own loops Hello? Are we programmers or what? Look the framework we have to build to minimise (not remove, just "minimise") writing loops: iterators. const. unidirectional. bidirectional. reverse iterators. const or not. iterator adaptor. functors. binders. composers. bind. function. lambda library. anything I forgot? most likely. We need to templatize like hell, bending the compiler to a point where we are happy it makes it through our code alive - and when not, we don't dare ask for sensible error messages. To avoid what?
// deprecated, don't use:
// for(int i=0; iI tell you what: unless I can write
count_if(container, element > 0)
I stick with my loops.
Where does this fear come from? It looks like everybody is ooohing and aaahing the marvelous insights into the human being Dr Freud opened up for all of us, wondering how we could live without it so long, before noticing that he's a serious whacko who needs some true job instead of a leather couch.
I suspect one of the guys who miffed up the STL was seriously loopophobic. maybe his wife left him because of a loop. Maybe his child died in his arms because he was off by one. Maybe he saw his sister nekkid in the woods when he was five. We don't know. But he had something going. What would be necessary to eliminate loops? At least most of them? Mark them evil?
The recent round of job interviews - complete with "write some code please": the majority rather try to remember an omnious function they once heard of (or just make one up that doesn't exist), instead of touching a for loop.
It's a loop, for god's sake. It's not a bear trap, it's not the infamous goto-spaghetti mess, it's not a terrorist nuke we have to keep out of our code whatever sacrifice of sanity is necessary.
What can go wrong in a loop?
- you forget to increment
- you are off by one
- you invalidate the container or the iterator
The first requires some discipline, the second some basic calculus training, and the third heaven forbid thinking! whoo!
How many algorithms can you think of using a loop? Ten? Tenthousand? Guys, generalize looping, not the algorithm.
Introducing a generic container iteration syntax ("a container to be iterable must have b
A agree. I've tried to get into the convoluted STL algorithm stuff, but the number of absurd hoops one has to jump through to use for_each just isn't worth the headache. I think the problem is that, like anything else, loops are dangerous in the hands of a stupid person. But all this solution does is to make replace one kind of potential error with a few more.. and with the resulting overhead of having to learn how the screwball STL algorithm syntax works.
-
Just read Andrew parkers nice boost intro. One sentence triggered a "prtogramiming question", with a line of thought better suited to this board: minimising the amount of times that users have to write their own loops Hello? Are we programmers or what? Look the framework we have to build to minimise (not remove, just "minimise") writing loops: iterators. const. unidirectional. bidirectional. reverse iterators. const or not. iterator adaptor. functors. binders. composers. bind. function. lambda library. anything I forgot? most likely. We need to templatize like hell, bending the compiler to a point where we are happy it makes it through our code alive - and when not, we don't dare ask for sensible error messages. To avoid what?
// deprecated, don't use:
// for(int i=0; iI tell you what: unless I can write
count_if(container, element > 0)
I stick with my loops.
Where does this fear come from? It looks like everybody is ooohing and aaahing the marvelous insights into the human being Dr Freud opened up for all of us, wondering how we could live without it so long, before noticing that he's a serious whacko who needs some true job instead of a leather couch.
I suspect one of the guys who miffed up the STL was seriously loopophobic. maybe his wife left him because of a loop. Maybe his child died in his arms because he was off by one. Maybe he saw his sister nekkid in the woods when he was five. We don't know. But he had something going. What would be necessary to eliminate loops? At least most of them? Mark them evil?
The recent round of job interviews - complete with "write some code please": the majority rather try to remember an omnious function they once heard of (or just make one up that doesn't exist), instead of touching a for loop.
It's a loop, for god's sake. It's not a bear trap, it's not the infamous goto-spaghetti mess, it's not a terrorist nuke we have to keep out of our code whatever sacrifice of sanity is necessary.
What can go wrong in a loop?
- you forget to increment
- you are off by one
- you invalidate the container or the iterator
The first requires some discipline, the second some basic calculus training, and the third heaven forbid thinking! whoo!
How many algorithms can you think of using a loop? Ten? Tenthousand? Guys, generalize looping, not the algorithm.
Introducing a generic container iteration syntax ("a container to be iterable must have b
What an excellent rant!! Got my 5 :) Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++
-
Just read Andrew parkers nice boost intro. One sentence triggered a "prtogramiming question", with a line of thought better suited to this board: minimising the amount of times that users have to write their own loops Hello? Are we programmers or what? Look the framework we have to build to minimise (not remove, just "minimise") writing loops: iterators. const. unidirectional. bidirectional. reverse iterators. const or not. iterator adaptor. functors. binders. composers. bind. function. lambda library. anything I forgot? most likely. We need to templatize like hell, bending the compiler to a point where we are happy it makes it through our code alive - and when not, we don't dare ask for sensible error messages. To avoid what?
// deprecated, don't use:
// for(int i=0; iI tell you what: unless I can write
count_if(container, element > 0)
I stick with my loops.
Where does this fear come from? It looks like everybody is ooohing and aaahing the marvelous insights into the human being Dr Freud opened up for all of us, wondering how we could live without it so long, before noticing that he's a serious whacko who needs some true job instead of a leather couch.
I suspect one of the guys who miffed up the STL was seriously loopophobic. maybe his wife left him because of a loop. Maybe his child died in his arms because he was off by one. Maybe he saw his sister nekkid in the woods when he was five. We don't know. But he had something going. What would be necessary to eliminate loops? At least most of them? Mark them evil?
The recent round of job interviews - complete with "write some code please": the majority rather try to remember an omnious function they once heard of (or just make one up that doesn't exist), instead of touching a for loop.
It's a loop, for god's sake. It's not a bear trap, it's not the infamous goto-spaghetti mess, it's not a terrorist nuke we have to keep out of our code whatever sacrifice of sanity is necessary.
What can go wrong in a loop?
- you forget to increment
- you are off by one
- you invalidate the container or the iterator
The first requires some discipline, the second some basic calculus training, and the third heaven forbid thinking! whoo!
How many algorithms can you think of using a loop? Ten? Tenthousand? Guys, generalize looping, not the algorithm.
Introducing a generic container iteration syntax ("a container to be iterable must have b
peterchen wrote: The first requires some discipline, the second some basic calculus training, and the third heaven forbid thinking! whoo! Hey,try to be a little sensitive man, there are logically challenged programmers too you know. I once met this loop written by an Oracle consultant:
for (int i = 0; i < 1; i++)
{
// And here was 1 (one) line of code!...
}He obviously hadn't consulted the Oracle the day he wrote that... "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Just read Andrew parkers nice boost intro. One sentence triggered a "prtogramiming question", with a line of thought better suited to this board: minimising the amount of times that users have to write their own loops Hello? Are we programmers or what? Look the framework we have to build to minimise (not remove, just "minimise") writing loops: iterators. const. unidirectional. bidirectional. reverse iterators. const or not. iterator adaptor. functors. binders. composers. bind. function. lambda library. anything I forgot? most likely. We need to templatize like hell, bending the compiler to a point where we are happy it makes it through our code alive - and when not, we don't dare ask for sensible error messages. To avoid what?
// deprecated, don't use:
// for(int i=0; iI tell you what: unless I can write
count_if(container, element > 0)
I stick with my loops.
Where does this fear come from? It looks like everybody is ooohing and aaahing the marvelous insights into the human being Dr Freud opened up for all of us, wondering how we could live without it so long, before noticing that he's a serious whacko who needs some true job instead of a leather couch.
I suspect one of the guys who miffed up the STL was seriously loopophobic. maybe his wife left him because of a loop. Maybe his child died in his arms because he was off by one. Maybe he saw his sister nekkid in the woods when he was five. We don't know. But he had something going. What would be necessary to eliminate loops? At least most of them? Mark them evil?
The recent round of job interviews - complete with "write some code please": the majority rather try to remember an omnious function they once heard of (or just make one up that doesn't exist), instead of touching a for loop.
It's a loop, for god's sake. It's not a bear trap, it's not the infamous goto-spaghetti mess, it's not a terrorist nuke we have to keep out of our code whatever sacrifice of sanity is necessary.
What can go wrong in a loop?
- you forget to increment
- you are off by one
- you invalidate the container or the iterator
The first requires some discipline, the second some basic calculus training, and the third heaven forbid thinking! whoo!
How many algorithms can you think of using a loop? Ten? Tenthousand? Guys, generalize looping, not the algorithm.
Introducing a generic container iteration syntax ("a container to be iterable must have b
for loops are way too readable, the whole purpose of STL and especially Boost is to enable the production of completely unreadable code that will utterly confuse the slack-jawed imbecile who only knows C# and is asked to maintain my C++ code. I plan to leave behind a legacy that will cause tears of frustration and untold misery in the so-called "programmers" of tommorrow.
-
for loops are way too readable, the whole purpose of STL and especially Boost is to enable the production of completely unreadable code that will utterly confuse the slack-jawed imbecile who only knows C# and is asked to maintain my C++ code. I plan to leave behind a legacy that will cause tears of frustration and untold misery in the so-called "programmers" of tommorrow.
paulb wrote: I plan to leave behind a legacy that will cause tears of frustration and untold misery in the so-called "programmers" of tommorrow. You definitly have the right attitude. Now for god-sake never comment any code, unless you learn Klingon. Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: Watch this signature for an upcoming announcement that will effect you.
-
I'm actually trying to move on to an iterator pair, that acts like an iterator that knows it's end, so you can
for(iterpair it(container); it; ++it)
DoSomethingNastyTo(*it);Just got to roughen out the templates and make it an CP article... maybe tomnite - no, it rained the first time since weeksof a brutish heat. I'll have a walk down to the river.
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
sighist || Agile Programming | doxygenThat's pretty smart! -- Denn du bist, was du isst! Und ihr wisst, was es ist! Es ist mein Teil...?
-
paulb wrote: I plan to leave behind a legacy that will cause tears of frustration and untold misery in the so-called "programmers" of tommorrow. You definitly have the right attitude. Now for god-sake never comment any code, unless you learn Klingon. Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: Watch this signature for an upcoming announcement that will effect you.
-
Just read Andrew parkers nice boost intro. One sentence triggered a "prtogramiming question", with a line of thought better suited to this board: minimising the amount of times that users have to write their own loops Hello? Are we programmers or what? Look the framework we have to build to minimise (not remove, just "minimise") writing loops: iterators. const. unidirectional. bidirectional. reverse iterators. const or not. iterator adaptor. functors. binders. composers. bind. function. lambda library. anything I forgot? most likely. We need to templatize like hell, bending the compiler to a point where we are happy it makes it through our code alive - and when not, we don't dare ask for sensible error messages. To avoid what?
// deprecated, don't use:
// for(int i=0; iI tell you what: unless I can write
count_if(container, element > 0)
I stick with my loops.
Where does this fear come from? It looks like everybody is ooohing and aaahing the marvelous insights into the human being Dr Freud opened up for all of us, wondering how we could live without it so long, before noticing that he's a serious whacko who needs some true job instead of a leather couch.
I suspect one of the guys who miffed up the STL was seriously loopophobic. maybe his wife left him because of a loop. Maybe his child died in his arms because he was off by one. Maybe he saw his sister nekkid in the woods when he was five. We don't know. But he had something going. What would be necessary to eliminate loops? At least most of them? Mark them evil?
The recent round of job interviews - complete with "write some code please": the majority rather try to remember an omnious function they once heard of (or just make one up that doesn't exist), instead of touching a for loop.
It's a loop, for god's sake. It's not a bear trap, it's not the infamous goto-spaghetti mess, it's not a terrorist nuke we have to keep out of our code whatever sacrifice of sanity is necessary.
What can go wrong in a loop?
- you forget to increment
- you are off by one
- you invalidate the container or the iterator
The first requires some discipline, the second some basic calculus training, and the third heaven forbid thinking! whoo!
How many algorithms can you think of using a loop? Ten? Tenthousand? Guys, generalize looping, not the algorithm.
Introducing a generic container iteration syntax ("a container to be iterable must have b
For your eyes only:
vector<pair<int, int> > v;
transform(x.begin(), x.end(), y.begin(), back_inserter(v),
bind(constructor<pair<int, int> >(), _1, _2));:jig: :jig:
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
-
for loops are way too readable, the whole purpose of STL and especially Boost is to enable the production of completely unreadable code that will utterly confuse the slack-jawed imbecile who only knows C# and is asked to maintain my C++ code. I plan to leave behind a legacy that will cause tears of frustration and untold misery in the so-called "programmers" of tommorrow.
paulb wrote: slack-jawed imbecile who only knows C# and is asked to maintain my C++ code. Most VB C# programmers wouldn't come near any C++ code - they are too afraid of pointers. Pointers bite, you know.
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
-
Just read Andrew parkers nice boost intro. One sentence triggered a "prtogramiming question", with a line of thought better suited to this board: minimising the amount of times that users have to write their own loops Hello? Are we programmers or what? Look the framework we have to build to minimise (not remove, just "minimise") writing loops: iterators. const. unidirectional. bidirectional. reverse iterators. const or not. iterator adaptor. functors. binders. composers. bind. function. lambda library. anything I forgot? most likely. We need to templatize like hell, bending the compiler to a point where we are happy it makes it through our code alive - and when not, we don't dare ask for sensible error messages. To avoid what?
// deprecated, don't use:
// for(int i=0; iI tell you what: unless I can write
count_if(container, element > 0)
I stick with my loops.
Where does this fear come from? It looks like everybody is ooohing and aaahing the marvelous insights into the human being Dr Freud opened up for all of us, wondering how we could live without it so long, before noticing that he's a serious whacko who needs some true job instead of a leather couch.
I suspect one of the guys who miffed up the STL was seriously loopophobic. maybe his wife left him because of a loop. Maybe his child died in his arms because he was off by one. Maybe he saw his sister nekkid in the woods when he was five. We don't know. But he had something going. What would be necessary to eliminate loops? At least most of them? Mark them evil?
The recent round of job interviews - complete with "write some code please": the majority rather try to remember an omnious function they once heard of (or just make one up that doesn't exist), instead of touching a for loop.
It's a loop, for god's sake. It's not a bear trap, it's not the infamous goto-spaghetti mess, it's not a terrorist nuke we have to keep out of our code whatever sacrifice of sanity is necessary.
What can go wrong in a loop?
- you forget to increment
- you are off by one
- you invalidate the container or the iterator
The first requires some discipline, the second some basic calculus training, and the third heaven forbid thinking! whoo!
How many algorithms can you think of using a loop? Ten? Tenthousand? Guys, generalize looping, not the algorithm.
Introducing a generic container iteration syntax ("a container to be iterable must have b
peterchen wrote: What can go wrong in a loop? Well, apparently it was a loop that brought CP to its knees a few weeks ago. :-D Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C# MyXaml MyXaml Blog Hunt The Wumpus RealDevs.Net
-
BTW, when I do iterator loops, I use while loops;
container::iterator i = c.begin(), end = c.end();
while(i != end) {
// Do some funky stuff here
++i;
}. The for loop tends to become very kludgy when you define 2 variables in its initialization part. :) -- Denn du bist, was du isst! Und ihr wisst, was es ist! Es ist mein Teil...?
-
paulb wrote: slack-jawed imbecile who only knows C# and is asked to maintain my C++ code. Most VB C# programmers wouldn't come near any C++ code - they are too afraid of pointers. Pointers bite, you know.
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
>Most VB C# programmers :mad: Let us not start more idiotic prejudice based on language choice eh. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Christopher Duncan wrote: "I always knew that somewhere deep inside that likable, Save the Whales kinda guy there lurked the heart of a troublemaker..." Crikey! ain't life grand?
-
>Most VB C# programmers :mad: Let us not start more idiotic prejudice based on language choice eh. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Christopher Duncan wrote: "I always knew that somewhere deep inside that likable, Save the Whales kinda guy there lurked the heart of a troublemaker..." Crikey! ain't life grand?
Paul Watson wrote: more idiotic prejudice based on language choice eh Hey, hey, hey! This is SoapBox. Why are political, religious and sexual prejudices better than programming ones? I have no opinion on gay marriages or affirmative action (whatever that is), so I am excluded from SoapBox? More programming rants to the people. :cool:
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
-
Paul Watson wrote: more idiotic prejudice based on language choice eh Hey, hey, hey! This is SoapBox. Why are political, religious and sexual prejudices better than programming ones? I have no opinion on gay marriages or affirmative action (whatever that is), so I am excluded from SoapBox? More programming rants to the people. :cool:
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
-
Just read Andrew parkers nice boost intro. One sentence triggered a "prtogramiming question", with a line of thought better suited to this board: minimising the amount of times that users have to write their own loops Hello? Are we programmers or what? Look the framework we have to build to minimise (not remove, just "minimise") writing loops: iterators. const. unidirectional. bidirectional. reverse iterators. const or not. iterator adaptor. functors. binders. composers. bind. function. lambda library. anything I forgot? most likely. We need to templatize like hell, bending the compiler to a point where we are happy it makes it through our code alive - and when not, we don't dare ask for sensible error messages. To avoid what?
// deprecated, don't use:
// for(int i=0; iI tell you what: unless I can write
count_if(container, element > 0)
I stick with my loops.
Where does this fear come from? It looks like everybody is ooohing and aaahing the marvelous insights into the human being Dr Freud opened up for all of us, wondering how we could live without it so long, before noticing that he's a serious whacko who needs some true job instead of a leather couch.
I suspect one of the guys who miffed up the STL was seriously loopophobic. maybe his wife left him because of a loop. Maybe his child died in his arms because he was off by one. Maybe he saw his sister nekkid in the woods when he was five. We don't know. But he had something going. What would be necessary to eliminate loops? At least most of them? Mark them evil?
The recent round of job interviews - complete with "write some code please": the majority rather try to remember an omnious function they once heard of (or just make one up that doesn't exist), instead of touching a for loop.
It's a loop, for god's sake. It's not a bear trap, it's not the infamous goto-spaghetti mess, it's not a terrorist nuke we have to keep out of our code whatever sacrifice of sanity is necessary.
What can go wrong in a loop?
- you forget to increment
- you are off by one
- you invalidate the container or the iterator
The first requires some discipline, the second some basic calculus training, and the third heaven forbid thinking! whoo!
How many algorithms can you think of using a loop? Ten? Tenthousand? Guys, generalize looping, not the algorithm.
Introducing a generic container iteration syntax ("a container to be iterable must have b
Yeah that's my impression, too. This seems to be complexity for complexity's sake, or possibly just to distance itself from anything obvious non-STL. ----------------------------- All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
-
for loops are way too readable, the whole purpose of STL and especially Boost is to enable the production of completely unreadable code that will utterly confuse the slack-jawed imbecile who only knows C# and is asked to maintain my C++ code. I plan to leave behind a legacy that will cause tears of frustration and untold misery in the so-called "programmers" of tommorrow.
paulb wrote: for loops are way too readable Not if you do something like this :-D
#include <iostream> using namespace std; int arr[] = {3, 4, 2, 5, 1, 9, 0, 8, 7, 6 }; for(int i=((signed)sizeof(arr)/-(signed)sizeof(arr[0]));cout<* * * Ian Darling [The world is a thing of utter inordinate complexity ... that such complexity can arise ... out of such simplicity ... is the most fabulous extraordinary idea ... once you get some kind of inkling of how that might have happened - it's just wonderful ... the opportunity to spend 70 or 80 years of your life in such a universe is time well spent as far as I am concerned](http://www.edge.org/documents/adams_index.html) - Douglas Adams -
Just read Andrew parkers nice boost intro. One sentence triggered a "prtogramiming question", with a line of thought better suited to this board: minimising the amount of times that users have to write their own loops Hello? Are we programmers or what? Look the framework we have to build to minimise (not remove, just "minimise") writing loops: iterators. const. unidirectional. bidirectional. reverse iterators. const or not. iterator adaptor. functors. binders. composers. bind. function. lambda library. anything I forgot? most likely. We need to templatize like hell, bending the compiler to a point where we are happy it makes it through our code alive - and when not, we don't dare ask for sensible error messages. To avoid what?
// deprecated, don't use:
// for(int i=0; iI tell you what: unless I can write
count_if(container, element > 0)
I stick with my loops.
Where does this fear come from? It looks like everybody is ooohing and aaahing the marvelous insights into the human being Dr Freud opened up for all of us, wondering how we could live without it so long, before noticing that he's a serious whacko who needs some true job instead of a leather couch.
I suspect one of the guys who miffed up the STL was seriously loopophobic. maybe his wife left him because of a loop. Maybe his child died in his arms because he was off by one. Maybe he saw his sister nekkid in the woods when he was five. We don't know. But he had something going. What would be necessary to eliminate loops? At least most of them? Mark them evil?
The recent round of job interviews - complete with "write some code please": the majority rather try to remember an omnious function they once heard of (or just make one up that doesn't exist), instead of touching a for loop.
It's a loop, for god's sake. It's not a bear trap, it's not the infamous goto-spaghetti mess, it's not a terrorist nuke we have to keep out of our code whatever sacrifice of sanity is necessary.
What can go wrong in a loop?
- you forget to increment
- you are off by one
- you invalidate the container or the iterator
The first requires some discipline, the second some basic calculus training, and the third heaven forbid thinking! whoo!
How many algorithms can you think of using a loop? Ten? Tenthousand? Guys, generalize looping, not the algorithm.
Introducing a generic container iteration syntax ("a container to be iterable must have b
-
>Most VB C# programmers :mad: Let us not start more idiotic prejudice based on language choice eh. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Christopher Duncan wrote: "I always knew that somewhere deep inside that likable, Save the Whales kinda guy there lurked the heart of a troublemaker..." Crikey! ain't life grand?