Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Small challenge: sort names Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2026 06:31:00 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 24 Message-ID: <86zf376l7v.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <10r4h6o$396qn$1@dont-email.me> <10r537m$in2o$4@dont-email.me> <10r5vh2$3mo17$2@dont-email.me> <10r64uq$3pf3r$1@dont-email.me> <20260409001030.000006c9@yahoo.com> <86h5pkww9a.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87cy0832zp.fsf@example.invalid> <86se908fp6.fsf@linuxsc.com> <6kOCR.135369$rGx6.58407@fx24.iad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2026 13:31:01 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1700fa93b8e58fbb3b86c46e932ae128"; logging-data="3504628"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+U/yn9Z7AIo0F4miQQpB5mcvbSs5z7Vwk=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:d+ak9vRA+2SEqY5hW/tWsyXJSAs= sha1:5eTbJLnnDxMJ2zw6Xfg7p2QLcRo= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:397516 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > Tim Rentsch writes: > >> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >> >>> Or even obsolete. The systems in question were all retired by >>> 2010, and never had a C compiler. The system was BCD and the >>> six digit 'undigit' value of EEEEEE was chosen as the NIL (NULL) >>> pointer value. >> >> It would be nice if in the future it were stated directly when a >> non-C environment is the context of a comment. I mistakenly >> understood that what you were saying had to do with experience >> using some unusual C compiler. > > I was in the OS group at the time. The languages group had > started looking at writing a C compiler for the architecture, but > it never panned out (and there was little interest from the > predominantly COBOL customer base). I'm sure there was a good reason for working in the development environment you were using, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I just wanted a heads-up about the non-C-ness of it.