Talk:Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test

Original research and Primary sources issues
It's great that this article has been created, but it appears to be almost entirely original research by the initial author, and almost exclusively taken from primary sources rather than secondary sources. The sole exception is the use of the Lemley source. It very much needs to be cleaned up, citing secondary sources, instead of the writer's own analysis of the case. TJRC (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723035501/http://www.cardozoaelj.net/issues/99/Newman.pdf to http://www.cardozoaelj.net/issues/99/Newman.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310144346/http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/982/982.F2d.693.91-7935.91-7893.762.html to http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/982/982.F2d.693.91-7935.91-7893.762.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120531144659/http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/797/797.F2d.1222.85-1358.html to http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/797/797.F2d.1222.85-1358.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This legal test...
libstdc++ (and most C++ STL implementations) have copyrights slathered all over them, but I'm not sure that any of them can meet the legal requirements to be copyrightable. The ISO C++ standard is so strict on member functions, runtime complexity, traits, satisfied concepts, etc, that there's practically no room for variance. The runtime complexity in particular can narrow some of the associative containers down to a single possible trie type, and the tries themselves are all rehashed so many times in so many codebases and computer science books that it would likely be impossible not to duplicate the majority of the code without badly affecting performance. I think the only leeway anything gets is the possibility of being less complex to execute than the standard requires, but this generally isn't possible without storage of extra data that messes up the memory usage requirements. One of my personal favorites was the stdbool.h header I found laying around that had around 60 lines of GPL copyright nonsense followed by:

That was it. Why, the spark of genius that created that masterpiece should certainly be awarded both a copyright and a presidential medal of honor. A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)