Yes. I have invested time on my end to cause some understanding for an issue. But as I can confirm onto what has been my experience in that regard all along, when speaking to niche experts in an interdisciplinary interface and attempting to do something unconventional or maybe even novel, they are refuting, denying, obscuring, defaming, fatiguing, reinterpreting, straw-manning, etc. your problem/situation/fact from who you are, what you are doing, what you are knowing, what you are even asking, why you are even asking, the way you are asking, etc. I think what really happens is that when a person in domain X is contacting to a person in domain Y and asks x then Y will go all the way to transform x into y. And I would harshly claim that the motivation in doing so is to pull x out of X into the domain Y where they can claim with upper hand that what you do makes no sense. Essentially I have been asking (maybe eight times or so) to execute lengthy instructions. C++ does not forbid this. You cannot do it. And you give me flack for it by basically repeating "you must be doing something wrong", equivalent in saying to <I can add 1 and 1>. I won't participate in further dialogue. On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 4:15 PM Andrew Bell <andrew.bell.ia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 5:33 AM Kai Song via Gcc-help < > gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> @David: I am sorry there was a misunderstanding with the example. You >> wrote >> four lines of code to be able to replace two lines of code into a for-loop >> of length 2, somewhere in a 1Bio line program where this pattern >> coincidentally occured once in one generated instance. (In the next >> instance, the "pattern" might not occur, so then you just added four >> lines.) Also, it is unclear how you would implement in turn the code which >> locates the line 200 and decides to replace it with the for-loop. Further, >> you left unclear where to place this for-loop (in line 100 or line 200?), >> both of which will lead to the wrong result in the generated program due >> to >> false assumption on raise-conditions. >> > > Hi, > > You seem out of your depth with regard to this programming task. You are > conversing with experts who have kindly given their time to help address > your issue. Perhaps you should hire someone locally to help you turn your > current effort into something more manageable. There are many ways to solve > most problems and it seems likely that your current method is not the best. > > -- > Andrew Bell > andrew.bell.ia@xxxxxxxxx >
