From a talk I heard on video:

|The problem is: Some vectors, their indexing operators don't
|return references. And the poster child for this is "vector
|of bool".

. I gave you some context, but I listened up when hearing:

|Some vectors, their indexing operators don't return
|references.

. In standard (written )English, I think, this would be
something more like:

|The indexing operators of some vectors do not return references.

. Thanks for reading!

On 3/21/2024 3:40 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> From a talk I heard on video:
>
> |The problem is: Some vectors, their indexing operators don't
> |return references. And the poster child for this is "vector
> |of bool".
>
> . I gave you some context, but I listened up when hearing:
>
> |Some vectors, their indexing operators don't return
> |references.
>
> . In standard (written )English, I think, this would be
> something more like:
>
> |The indexing operators of some vectors do not return references.
>
> . Thanks for reading!

So the obvious question would be...

What's the vector, Victor?

I see myself out.

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, at 14:40:30, Stefan Ram posted:
> From a talk I heard on video:

Hang on. Video is visual, talk is aural. You have lost your viewers, or
your audience, in the first seven words of your post.
>
>|The problem is: Some vectors, their indexing operators don't
>|return references.

That's too obscure. Who are the indexing operators of these "some
vectors"? What indexes are they operating?

>And the poster child for this is "vector
>|of bool".

This must be a joke.
>
> . I gave you some context,

Why do you begin a sentence with a full stop?

>but I listened up when hearing:

All right, I'll allow "listened up" but I think it means "began
listening".
>
>|Some vectors, their indexing operators don't return
>|references.
>
> . In standard (written )English, I think, this would be
> something more like:
>
>|The indexing operators of some vectors do not return references.

That does look better, but equally meaningless. Telephone operators used
to connect callers to receivers. What do indexing operators do, and to
whom to they return their references?
>
> . Thanks for reading!

Another misplaced full stop. And why do you give thanks for reading?
What about writing too? You can't have the former without the latter,
although the latter is the former, temporally speaking.
--
Paul W

Paul Wolff asserted that:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, at 14:40:30, Stefan Ram posted:

>> . Thanks for reading!
>
> Another misplaced full stop. And why do you give thanks for reading? What
> about writing too? You can't have the former without the latter, although the
> latter is the former, temporally speaking.

Well, you hadn't written yet when Stefan proferred his thanks. That
thankfulness was directed towards his readers, and now you apparently
are one of those.

And those of us who are readers can give thanks for writers, and speak
generally of those. In another post, I've discussed some writers. But
now you've joined the writers, so thank you for your messages.

/dps

--
Courage is knowing it might hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same.
And that's why life is hard.
-- the World Wide Web

Stefan Ram wrote:

> From a talk I heard on video:

> |The problem is: Some vectors, their indexing operators don't
> |return references. And the poster child for this is "vector
> |of bool".

> . I gave you some context, but I listened up when hearing:

I don't see any reason to make your posting style more eccentric.

> |Some vectors, their indexing operators don't return
> |references.

> . In standard (written )English, I think, this would be
> something more like:

> |The indexing operators of some vectors do not return references.
...

Or "Some vectors' indexing operators don't return references." Not
that I know what indexing operators are or what references they
might return.

--
Jerry Friedman

El Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:45:33 +0000, Paul Wolff escribió:

> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, at 14:40:30, Stefan Ram posted:

>>|The indexing operators of some vectors do not return references.
>
> That does look better, but equally meaningless.

In programmer-speak (OOP), it would sound fine.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es