Boost::documentation == false
-
This tells us what the WTF is not, not what it is.
Well, I assumed I don't have to repeat it twice (or more).This tells us what the WTF is, not what it is not.
Because I realized I have to after all.
-
Well, I assumed I don't have to repeat it twice (or more).
In order to repeat something, first you must say it.
-
I would quote post #21 (which BTW is marked as solution by @PJH), but there's no point in it because you'd deny that post exists anyway.
-
Don't be stupid; of course the post exists. It just doesn't explain the ; it tries, but it leaves out the one detail that would make it a complete explanation.
-
Don't be stupid; of course the post exists.
You surely claimed otherwise before.It just doesn't explain the
It does. For me, saying that docs says "p(a,b) must be true" and code says "p(b,a) must be false" and that it causes problems when a=b is enough explanation.
-
You surely claimed otherwise before.
If you can find one place where I claimed a post doesn't exist, I'll send you a 3" figure of Pinkie Pie.For me, saying that docs says "p(a,b) must be true" and code says "p(b,a) must be false" and that it causes problems when a=b is enough explanation.
Yes, because you had all the information to hand. Since no-one here knew what predicate you were using, no-one here had all the information required.
-
If you can find one place where I claimed a post doesn't exist, I'll send you a 3" figure of Pinkie Pie.
You said
I'm glad you agree
in reply toSure, I totally made up those quotes where it says what you claim I didn't ever say.
Which means that you actually thought that those quotes were made up.
-
Yes, because you had all the information to hand.
Namely, the documentation and the source code.Since no-one here knew what predicate you were using, no-one here had all the information required.
FYI: the source code of a function stays the same regardless of predicate you use in your function call, and so does the documentation.
-
Holy crap you're right. You really should have used '<=' in your readability example because that would actually have shown the problem, but jesus christ on a bike.
The documentation isn't just kind of inaccurate, it's actively misleading. If you consult it when you're making a predicate to decide whether to use
<
or<=
it will specifically walk you into a trap that's hard to debug.
-
Which means that you actually thought that those quotes were made up.
Because I was totally not being sarcastic or facetious or just trolling because I was bored, nosireee I was not!Namely, the documentation and the source code.
But not your predicate.
-
Holy crap you're right.
What a surprise!You really should have used '<=' in your readability example because that would actually have shown the problem
Yeah I should've. Or just leave the predicate function.
-
Because I was totally not being sarcastic or facetious or just trolling because I was bored, nosireee I was not!
And you're totally not trolling right now either.But not your predicate.
I didn't have my predicate? That's new. Also, irrelevant.
-
And you're totally not trolling right now either.
Or am I? No, I'm not. Or maybe I am? Or maybe I'm not? How can you tell? Does this look infected to you?
-
How can you tell?
I can't. So I just assume you're trolling when you sound reasonable and you're being serious when you don't.
-
How do you know that's a safe assumption? Maybe I'll switch it around someday. Maybe I already have? Maybe I switched it twice while you didn't notice. Maybe I switched it for popcorn! Or trousers. Or trousers made of popcorn!
-
Sounds like you picked the wrong pony for your avatar ;) Maybe something pinker
-
Nah; I haven't mentioned balloons, cake, or parties yet ;)
-
You haven't shown logic or knowledge either.
-
I have; it's just too amazing for you to understand
-
-
Maybe something shut up-er.
-
Can we assume your ragequits are trolling when you know you won't be able to log in fo ra while?
-
Something that looks like a mute button?
-
You shut up, too.
-
You never shut up in your topics. Why would I shut up in mine?
-
Maybe something shut up-er.
-
For me, saying that docs says "p(a,b) must be true" and code says "p(b,a) must be false" and that it causes problems when a=b is enough explanation.
That actually lost me. I would not have assumed that was a problem, actually...
a 3" figure of Pinkie Pie.
?
-
@RaceProUK said:
a 3" figure of Pinkie Pie.
?
-
You have a documentation / function mismatch here.
Here's the documentation for the code you linked to.
The fact that the documentation you linked to didn't have a signature that matched the implementation should have been a big clue that you weren't looking at the right docs.