Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Date: Mon, 11 May 2026 19:41:58 -0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Message-ID: <10ttbe6$bbk$2@reader1.panix.com> References: <10su8cn$am9i$1@dont-email.me> <10tstnn$17jmo$1@dont-email.me> <10tt82u$rdm$1@reader1.panix.com> Injection-Date: Mon, 11 May 2026 19:41:58 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80"; logging-data="11636"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com" X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:398761 In article , Scott Lurndal wrote: >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes: >>In article <10tstnn$17jmo$1@dont-email.me>, Bart wrote: >>>On 11/05/2026 14:54, Dan Cross wrote: > >>>You're both clever chaps, and I think you know perfectly well what is >>>happening. So shame on you. >> >>Consider that, perhaps, your use of terminology is so muddled >>and unclear that we do not, in fact, "know perfectly well what >>is happening." >> >>I can't speak for Scott, of course, but from where I am sitting, >>you seem to be very uninformed about how these things work >>generally, and you're using your own, made-up terminology. >>Sometimes, that terminology conflicts with standard terminology, >>and confusion results. You seem to think this is people >>deliberately trying to misinterpret you. > >Indeed. I misunderstood him, my apologies. > >Software distribution is a problem was been solved decades ago. > >Whether early shell archives (shar) or tar/cpio, >.rpm/.deb et alia or even windows installers, >it's a problem that's been solved many times; >'shar' is even a single text file. > >All of which must, of course, be unpacked before building the >code, although with shar (and .rpm/.deb), the software can >be built as part the installation process automatically. > >Bart seems to be advocating a distribution mechanism where one >feeds the distributed file directly into a compiler without >being required to unpack an archive first. I think that's right. I don't really know how to respond to him other than to say, "Ok. Sure. Have fun?"" - Dan C.