Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #391822 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-04-02 16:59 +1100 |
| Last post | 2025-04-11 13:51 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 458 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
"A diagram of C23 basic types" Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> - 2025-04-02 16:59 +1100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-02 06:02 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 01:20 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-03 20:35 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 04:27 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-02 09:02 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-02 07:32 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-03 05:43 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 09:38 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-03 10:15 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 04:17 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 03:28 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-02 11:33 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-02 20:53 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-02 10:57 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-02 10:14 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-02 15:35 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-02 14:05 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-02 11:12 -0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-02 15:12 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-02 16:33 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-04-02 15:51 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-02 16:20 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-02 23:31 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-02 23:32 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-03 03:02 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 13:42 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-03 19:32 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 09:49 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 13:21 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-03 01:10 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-03 05:09 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-02 23:12 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 01:28 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-03 19:37 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-03 21:48 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-04 02:57 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 12:49 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 15:01 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 12:26 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 20:11 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-10 09:53 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-10 11:37 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-12 05:43 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-12 10:10 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-12 17:21 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 14:27 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-10 10:07 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 12:08 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-10 12:48 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-12 05:44 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 12:42 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-10 15:06 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 15:29 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-10 16:55 +0200
C implementation headers [was Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"] scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-10 15:17 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 13:47 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 14:56 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-12 05:42 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 13:46 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-09 13:14 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 15:01 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-14 02:10 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 04:08 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-02 09:34 -0800
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-02-02 16:15 -0800
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-10 11:42 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-14 01:59 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-14 12:44 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-05 16:25 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-06 11:26 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-08 06:08 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-09 20:38 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-04 03:05 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 21:06 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-04 12:39 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-08 02:36 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 14:30 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-03 23:32 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-04 14:07 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-04 02:55 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 08:55 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 13:43 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 11:45 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 09:57 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-04 02:54 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 08:46 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 14:14 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-04 09:42 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-04 13:42 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-04 14:10 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-04 14:27 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-04 03:01 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 21:05 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-07 17:30 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-07 21:49 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-08 18:40 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-14 04:33 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-14 17:40 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-14 17:46 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-15 09:41 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 13:36 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 15:15 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-14 22:33 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 15:56 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-14 23:41 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 17:57 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-14 23:25 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 04:11 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-15 10:06 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 15:56 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 17:04 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-15 20:53 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-17 17:56 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-19 09:46 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-19 17:15 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-19 23:15 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-21 20:34 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 14:28 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-22 01:07 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-22 19:30 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-05 16:40 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-22 00:28 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 22:58 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-15 21:02 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-16 07:42 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 00:00 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-15 14:08 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 12:29 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-15 18:57 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 23:01 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 17:10 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-16 02:11 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 23:00 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 18:46 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 04:14 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-15 10:19 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-15 14:28 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 12:17 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 16:20 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-17 03:03 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 22:34 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 22:38 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 23:10 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" dave_thompson_2@comcast.net - 2025-07-29 10:49 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-07-29 21:18 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 19:43 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 04:15 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 00:40 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-15 19:22 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 12:54 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-15 19:10 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 19:54 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-18 20:03 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 22:56 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 23:48 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-16 07:41 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-18 20:10 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-15 14:10 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 13:00 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 16:42 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-16 14:00 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 12:48 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-16 20:04 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 16:10 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-16 23:13 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 16:31 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-17 01:05 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-17 01:26 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-17 23:18 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-28 07:52 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-30 23:57 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-01 06:17 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 16:11 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-17 23:16 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-29 02:10 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-28 19:20 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-29 08:37 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-29 13:14 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-28 23:34 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-29 08:44 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-30 23:58 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-30 17:15 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-29 05:10 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-29 01:24 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-29 13:02 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-29 19:25 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-29 19:00 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-08 02:27 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-07 19:02 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-07 21:12 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-07 19:18 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" G <g@nowhere.invalid> - 2025-04-07 18:41 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-07 22:14 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-07 23:49 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-07 23:18 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-07 22:37 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-07 22:46 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-07 23:57 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-07 16:01 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-08 11:45 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 11:37 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 10:25 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-18 02:39 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 12:49 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-19 00:16 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-07 20:29 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-07 22:30 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-07 22:26 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 10:29 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-08 10:54 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-08 14:20 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-08 14:25 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-08 21:29 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 13:39 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-08 13:00 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 16:55 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-08 19:25 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-08 14:32 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-08 20:53 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-08 22:30 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-09 09:01 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 12:23 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-09 10:08 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 13:32 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-09 11:00 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-09 13:04 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 15:24 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-09 12:35 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-09 11:02 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 14:33 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 15:09 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-01 00:01 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 15:16 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 16:56 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 18:19 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-04-09 18:32 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 15:09 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-09 13:17 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-08 14:34 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-09 09:00 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-08 02:29 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-02 16:18 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-04 02:53 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-02 17:28 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-02 15:17 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-02 16:59 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-02 15:26 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-02 16:38 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-04-02 15:53 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-02 19:29 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-02 19:26 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-02 18:48 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-02 17:41 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 10:16 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 03:27 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 15:23 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 13:48 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-02 21:00 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 13:51 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 11:47 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 18:54 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 12:37 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-04 03:27 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-04 03:14 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-02 18:51 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-02 21:06 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 05:11 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-03 09:23 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-03 23:19 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-14 05:46 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-03 22:00 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-06 19:33 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-07 04:09 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-30 08:12 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-07 18:31 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-07 18:55 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-07 14:19 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-30 09:45 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-30 17:41 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-08 05:59 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-08 13:42 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-08 08:33 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-07 14:35 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 10:39 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-08 14:14 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 15:29 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-30 08:37 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 10:23 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 10:04 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-02 23:24 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 10:59 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-03 13:49 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 15:40 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 11:11 -0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 16:49 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-03 16:44 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 16:58 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-03 23:39 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 12:52 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-07 06:46 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-03 15:59 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 15:26 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-03 16:52 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 13:31 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 11:31 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 20:51 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 12:29 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-14 01:46 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 11:19 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 20:54 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-02 16:16 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 08:45 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 11:41 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 11:07 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 15:58 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-04 09:40 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 13:39 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-04 14:10 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 17:12 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-04-04 16:11 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:52 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-04 04:43 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 15:34 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-03 14:45 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 16:03 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-02 19:23 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-02 18:04 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 08:49 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 15:16 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 13:22 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-02 23:43 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 11:03 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-04 04:50 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 15:38 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-04 15:14 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 17:26 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-02 18:02 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-03 00:35 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-03 06:21 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 13:53 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-02 14:12 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-02 15:16 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-02 13:09 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 08:51 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Opus <ifonly@youknew.org> - 2025-04-03 15:05 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 13:19 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-03 16:27 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Opus <ifonly@youknew.org> - 2025-04-03 21:13 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-06 03:31 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 11:15 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 16:01 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-04 09:43 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 03:25 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-04 10:28 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 03:31 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 15:46 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-04 14:02 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 17:28 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-04-04 16:12 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 19:25 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:18 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-05 17:34 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-05 17:10 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-04 18:49 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-04 21:08 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 19:15 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-05 17:36 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-08 02:39 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-07 23:26 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2025-04-05 19:56 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 14:32 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 16:57 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 16:47 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-08 16:08 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-08 11:05 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 11:20 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 11:32 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2025-04-09 08:53 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 14:46 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 23:34 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 17:33 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-08 22:47 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-08 21:36 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 23:12 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 10:55 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-09 13:52 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-10 11:50 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-11 12:27 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-14 01:24 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-14 12:55 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-06 06:56 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-06 13:25 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-08 08:37 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-08 15:48 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-08 16:32 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-08 22:53 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-05-08 14:09 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-08 16:52 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-08 08:49 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 11:21 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 15:03 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-09 21:32 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 22:58 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 15:36 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-03 15:02 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 13:06 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-27 12:05 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-28 16:27 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-29 13:38 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-06 15:06 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-26 09:01 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-06-26 13:27 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-27 00:39 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-06-27 02:40 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-26 19:33 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-06-28 14:16 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-15 19:41 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-07-16 03:55 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-20 00:16 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-07-20 07:58 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-07-20 11:28 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-06-29 04:44 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-29 17:13 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-06-26 12:51 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-26 13:23 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-26 23:58 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-06-27 03:51 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-06-27 13:44 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-27 14:01 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-06-26 15:57 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-06-26 16:10 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-26 12:31 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-26 23:59 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-26 21:09 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-26 17:10 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-06-27 04:33 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-27 17:56 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-06-29 05:03 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-06-28 23:18 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-28 20:37 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-06-29 20:48 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-06-30 21:59 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-28 20:51 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-06-29 20:40 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" - correction Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-06-29 20:52 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" - correction "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-29 12:14 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-27 14:02 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-27 14:52 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-06-27 20:48 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-28 23:59 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-06-29 09:23 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-29 00:56 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-07-29 21:13 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-11 09:34 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 12:48 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-11 09:48 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 13:51 -0700
Page 2 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 23 Next page →
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-02 16:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vsjlcp$230a5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391838 |
On 02/04/2025 16:12, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 11:12:07 -0300
> Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> wibbled:
>> Em 4/2/2025 11:05 AM, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org escreveu:
>>> So what exactly is better / faster / clearer / safer in C23?
>>
>> We already had some C23 topics here.
>> My list
>>
>> - #warning (better)
>> - typeof/auto (better only when strictly necessary)
>
> Auto as per C++ where its used as a substitute for unknown/long winded
> templated types or in range based loops? C doesn't have those so there's no
> reason to have it. If you don't know what type you're dealing with in C then
> you'll soon be up poo creek.
>
>> - digit separator (better, safer)
>
> Meh.
What's the problem with it? Here, tell me at a glance the magnitude of
this number:
10000000000
You're either likely to get it wrong, or need to start counting digits.
Here (not the same number) it's easier:
100_000_000
>
>> - binary literal useful
>
> We've had bitfields for years which cover most use cases.
Bitfields and binary literals are completely different things! A binary
literal looks like this (if I got the prefix right):
0b1_1101_1101 // the decimal value 447 or hex value 1DD
0b11011101 // same thing without the separators
This is a bitfield, which can only appear inside a struct definition:
int a:12;
The mystery is why it's taken half a century to standardise such literals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-02 15:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vsjmdl$277bk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391842 |
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:33:46 +0100 bart <bc@freeuk.com> gabbled: >On 02/04/2025 16:12, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: >> Meh. > >What's the problem with it? Here, tell me at a glance the magnitude of >this number: > > 10000000000 And how often do you hard code values that large into a program? Almost never I imagine unless its some hex value to set flags in a word. >> We've had bitfields for years which cover most use cases. > >Bitfields and binary literals are completely different things! A binary >literal looks like this (if I got the prefix right): > > 0b1_1101_1101 // the decimal value 447 or hex value 1DD > 0b11011101 // same thing without the separators Well fair enough, I thought it was some new binary type. Yes those are useful. C++ has had then for over 10 years so you've been able to use them for a long time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-02 16:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <VsdHP.1828827$TBhc.1078002@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #391844 |
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: >On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:33:46 +0100 >bart <bc@freeuk.com> gabbled: >>On 02/04/2025 16:12, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: >>> Meh. >> >>What's the problem with it? Here, tell me at a glance the magnitude of >>this number: >> >> 10000000000 > >And how often do you hard code values that large into a program? Almost >never I imagine unless its some hex value to set flags in a word. Every day, several times a day. 16 hex digit constants are very common in my work. The digit separator really helps with readability, although I would have preferred '_' over "'".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-02 23:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vskaas$2rit9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391848 |
On 02.04.2025 18:20, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: >> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:33:46 +0100 >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> gabbled: >>> On 02/04/2025 16:12, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: >>>> Meh. >>> >>> What's the problem with it? Here, tell me at a glance the magnitude of >>> this number: >>> >>> 10000000000 >> >> And how often do you hard code values that large into a program? Almost >> never I imagine unless its some hex value to set flags in a word. I can't tell generally; it certainly depends on the application contexts. And of course for bases lower than 10 the numeric literals grow in length, so its usefulness is probably most obvious in binary literals. But why restrict a readability feature to binary only? It's useful and it doesn't hurt (WRT compatibility). > > Every day, several times a day. 16 hex digit constants are very > common in my work. The digit separator really helps with readability, > although I would have preferred '_' over "'". Obviously a question of opinion depending on where one comes from. I see a couple options for the group separator. Spaces (as used in Algol 68) are probably most readable, but maybe a no-go in "C". Locale specific separators (dot and comma vs. comma and dot, in fractional numbers) and the problem of commas infer own semantics. The single quote is actually what I found well suited in the past; it stems (I think) from the convention used in Switzerland. The underscore you mention didn't occur to me as option, but it's not bad as well. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-02 23:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gOjHP.130283$Xq5f.3427@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #391862 |
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: >On 02.04.2025 18:20, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: >>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:33:46 +0100 >>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> gabbled: >>>> On 02/04/2025 16:12, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: >>>>> Meh. >>>> >>>> What's the problem with it? Here, tell me at a glance the magnitude of >>>> this number: >>>> >>>> 10000000000 >>> >>> And how often do you hard code values that large into a program? Almost >>> never I imagine unless its some hex value to set flags in a word. > >I can't tell generally; it certainly depends on the application >contexts. > >And of course for bases lower than 10 the numeric literals grow >in length, so its usefulness is probably most obvious in binary >literals. But why restrict a readability feature to binary only? > >It's useful and it doesn't hurt (WRT compatibility). > >> >> Every day, several times a day. 16 hex digit constants are very >> common in my work. The digit separator really helps with readability, >> although I would have preferred '_' over "'". > >Obviously a question of opinion depending on where one comes from. Verilog uses _ as a digit separator.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-03 03:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vskmmb$388m7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391864 |
On 03.04.2025 01:32, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: >>> [...] >> >> Obviously a question of opinion depending on where one comes from. > > Verilog uses _ as a digit separator. And Kornshell's 'printf' uses ',' for output formatting as in $ printf "%,d\n" 1234567 1,234,567 Maybe it should be configurable? Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-03 13:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <RewHP.5710$j2D.5538@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #391869 |
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: >On 03.04.2025 01:32, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: >>>> [...] >>> >>> Obviously a question of opinion depending on where one comes from. >> >> Verilog uses _ as a digit separator. > >And Kornshell's 'printf' uses ',' for output formatting as in > >$ printf "%,d\n" 1234567 >1,234,567 > >Maybe it should be configurable? It is already configurable in ksh $ LANG=en_US.utf8 printf "$%'10.2f\n" $(( ( 7540.0 * 118.70 ) + ( 2295.0 * 412.88 ) )) $1,842,557.60
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-03 19:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vsmgng$17nvu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391916 |
On 03.04.2025 15:42, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: >> On 03.04.2025 01:32, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: >>>>> [...] >>>> >>>> Obviously a question of opinion depending on where one comes from. >>> >>> Verilog uses _ as a digit separator. >> >> And Kornshell's 'printf' uses ',' for output formatting as in >> >> $ printf "%,d\n" 1234567 >> 1,234,567 >> >> Maybe it should be configurable? > > It is already configurable in ksh Ah, right. (I hadn't tried that.) > $ LANG=en_US.utf8 printf "$%'10.2f\n" $(( ( 7540.0 * 118.70 ) + ( 2295.0 * 412.88 ) )) > > $1,842,557.60 $ LC_ALL=de_CH.UTF-8@isodate printf "%,d\n" 1234567 1'234'567 Works with %' and with %, as it seems. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-03 09:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vslehd$28l7$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391862 |
On 02/04/2025 23:31, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 02.04.2025 18:20, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: >>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:33:46 +0100 >>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> gabbled: >>>> On 02/04/2025 16:12, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: >>>>> Meh. >>>> >>>> What's the problem with it? Here, tell me at a glance the magnitude of >>>> this number: >>>> >>>> 10000000000 >>> >>> And how often do you hard code values that large into a program? Almost >>> never I imagine unless its some hex value to set flags in a word. > > I can't tell generally; it certainly depends on the application > contexts. > > And of course for bases lower than 10 the numeric literals grow > in length, so its usefulness is probably most obvious in binary > literals. But why restrict a readability feature to binary only? > > It's useful and it doesn't hurt (WRT compatibility). > >> >> Every day, several times a day. 16 hex digit constants are very >> common in my work. The digit separator really helps with readability, >> although I would have preferred '_' over "'". > > Obviously a question of opinion depending on where one comes from. > > I see a couple options for the group separator. Spaces (as used in > Algol 68) are probably most readable, but maybe a no-go in "C". > Locale specific separators (dot and comma vs. comma and dot, in > fractional numbers) and the problem of commas infer own semantics. > The single quote is actually what I found well suited in the past; > it stems (I think) from the convention used in Switzerland. The > underscore you mention didn't occur to me as option, but it's not > bad as well. > Once you have eliminated punctuation that would already have a different meaning in the syntax of the language, you very quickly get down to three choices, AFAICS - underscore, single quote or double quote. When C++ added digit separators, they had already used underscore for user-defined literals, so that was ruled out. I don't know if double quotation marks could have been used, or they were ruled out for other reasons, but C++ settled on single quotation marks. Then C followed suit, because re-inventing an incompatible wheel would have been insane. With hindsight, it might have been nicer to use underscore for digit separators and single quote marks for user-defined literals in C++ (in the manner of attributes in Ada), but the fact that underscore is effectively a letter in C and C++ was very relevant for its choice in user-defined literals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-03 13:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vsmjln$19uet$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391887 |
On 4/3/2025 2:49 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 02/04/2025 23:31, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >> On 02.04.2025 18:20, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: >>>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:33:46 +0100 >>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> gabbled: >>>>> On 02/04/2025 16:12, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: >>>>>> Meh. >>>>> >>>>> What's the problem with it? Here, tell me at a glance the magnitude of >>>>> this number: >>>>> >>>>> 10000000000 >>>> >>>> And how often do you hard code values that large into a program? Almost >>>> never I imagine unless its some hex value to set flags in a word. >> >> I can't tell generally; it certainly depends on the application >> contexts. >> >> And of course for bases lower than 10 the numeric literals grow >> in length, so its usefulness is probably most obvious in binary >> literals. But why restrict a readability feature to binary only? >> >> It's useful and it doesn't hurt (WRT compatibility). >> >>> >>> Every day, several times a day. 16 hex digit constants are very >>> common in my work. The digit separator really helps with readability, >>> although I would have preferred '_' over "'". >> >> Obviously a question of opinion depending on where one comes from. >> >> I see a couple options for the group separator. Spaces (as used in >> Algol 68) are probably most readable, but maybe a no-go in "C". >> Locale specific separators (dot and comma vs. comma and dot, in >> fractional numbers) and the problem of commas infer own semantics. >> The single quote is actually what I found well suited in the past; >> it stems (I think) from the convention used in Switzerland. The >> underscore you mention didn't occur to me as option, but it's not >> bad as well. >> > > Once you have eliminated punctuation that would already have a different > meaning in the syntax of the language, you very quickly get down to > three choices, AFAICS - underscore, single quote or double quote. When > C++ added digit separators, they had already used underscore for user- > defined literals, so that was ruled out. I don't know if double > quotation marks could have been used, or they were ruled out for other > reasons, but C++ settled on single quotation marks. Then C followed > suit, because re-inventing an incompatible wheel would have been insane. > > With hindsight, it might have been nicer to use underscore for digit > separators and single quote marks for user-defined literals in C++ (in > the manner of attributes in Ada), but the fact that underscore is > effectively a letter in C and C++ was very relevant for its choice in > user-defined literals. > Could have made sense to make a distinguishing rule that whether or not _ is understood as a digit or user-defined literal depends on whether the following character is also a valid digit. So, 0x0000_0000 is a digit separator, because it is followed by a digit. Can note that, in my case, whether 'z' or 'x' are allowed in a literal depends on both the base (only allowed for now in hex and binary literals, but not octal or decimal) and the suffix (they are only valid if the number token would end with a width-specifying number suffix, *1). But, one could argue that this does make tokenizing more annoying, as whether to end or continue the token depends on characters following the character in question (so, there is a need to add some complexity to "what if?" it slightly...). This was in turn because Verilog literal syntax, say, 16'h9zz1, wasn't really a fit for C either... *1: Say, iNN, uiNN, or uNN, where NN being the number of bits. 0x12345678i32 //exact-width, 32-bit signed literal. 0x12345678u32 //exact-width, 32-bit unsigned literal. ... > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-03 01:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vskjlo$34st8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391848 |
On 02/04/2025 17:20, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: >> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:33:46 +0100 >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> gabbled: >>> On 02/04/2025 16:12, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: >>>> Meh. >>> >>> What's the problem with it? Here, tell me at a glance the magnitude of >>> this number: >>> >>> 10000000000 >> >> And how often do you hard code values that large into a program? Almost >> never I imagine unless its some hex value to set flags in a word. > > Every day, several times a day. 16 hex digit constants are very > common in my work. The digit separator really helps with readability, > although I would have preferred '_' over "'". Oh, I thought C23 used '_', since Python uses that. I prefer single quote as that is not shifted on my keyboard. (My language projects just allow both!) That fact that it is not widespread is a problem however, so I can't use either without restricting the compilers that can be used. For example gcc 14.x on Windows accepts it with -std=c23 only; gcc on WSL doesn't; tcc doesn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-03 05:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20250402220614.431@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #391865 |
On 2025-04-03, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 02/04/2025 17:20, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: >>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:33:46 +0100 >>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> gabbled: >>>> On 02/04/2025 16:12, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: >>>>> Meh. >>>> >>>> What's the problem with it? Here, tell me at a glance the magnitude of >>>> this number: >>>> >>>> 10000000000 >>> >>> And how often do you hard code values that large into a program? Almost >>> never I imagine unless its some hex value to set flags in a word. >> >> Every day, several times a day. 16 hex digit constants are very >> common in my work. The digit separator really helps with readability, >> although I would have preferred '_' over "'". > > Oh, I thought C23 used '_', since Python uses that. I prefer single > quote as that is not shifted on my keyboard. (My language projects just > allow both!) I made , (comma) the digit separator in TXR Lisp. Nobody uses _ in the real world. I understand that in some countries, that is the decimal point. That is not relevant in programming languages that use a period for that and are not localized. Comma means I can just copy and paste a figure from a financial document or application, or any other document which uses that convention. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-02 23:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <85mscxlqnb.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #391879 |
Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:
> On 2025-04-03, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On 02/04/2025 17:20, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes:
>>>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:33:46 +0100
>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> gabbled:
>>>>> On 02/04/2025 16:12, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>>>>> Meh.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the problem with it? Here, tell me at a glance the magnitude of
>>>>> this number:
>>>>>
>>>>> 10000000000
>>>>
>>>> And how often do you hard code values that large into a program? Almost
>>>> never I imagine unless its some hex value to set flags in a word.
>>>
>>> Every day, several times a day. 16 hex digit constants are very
>>> common in my work. The digit separator really helps with readability,
>>> although I would have preferred '_' over "'".
>>
>> Oh, I thought C23 used '_', since Python uses that. I prefer single
>> quote as that is not shifted on my keyboard. (My language projects just
>> allow both!)
>
> I made , (comma) the digit separator in TXR Lisp. Nobody uses _ in the
> real world.
>
> I understand that in some countries, that is the decimal point. That is
> not relevant in programming languages that use a period for that and are
> not localized.
>
> Comma means I can just copy and paste a figure from a financial document
> or application, or any other document which uses that convention.
The comma couldn't be used in C without the possibility of breaking
existing code, since 123,456 is already a valid expression, and is
likely to occur in a context like `foo(123,456)`.
C23 borrowed 123'456 from C++ rather than 123_456 (which I would have
preferred). C++ chose 123'456 because the C++ already used the
underscore for user-defined literals. Apparently some countries, such
as Switzerland, use the apostrophe as a digit separator.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-03 01:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vsl9sn$3vdjj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391880 |
On 4/3/2025 1:12 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: > Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes: >> On 2025-04-03, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> On 02/04/2025 17:20, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: >>>>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:33:46 +0100 >>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> gabbled: >>>>>> On 02/04/2025 16:12, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: >>>>>>> Meh. >>>>>> >>>>>> What's the problem with it? Here, tell me at a glance the magnitude of >>>>>> this number: >>>>>> >>>>>> 10000000000 >>>>> >>>>> And how often do you hard code values that large into a program? Almost >>>>> never I imagine unless its some hex value to set flags in a word. >>>> >>>> Every day, several times a day. 16 hex digit constants are very >>>> common in my work. The digit separator really helps with readability, >>>> although I would have preferred '_' over "'". >>> >>> Oh, I thought C23 used '_', since Python uses that. I prefer single >>> quote as that is not shifted on my keyboard. (My language projects just >>> allow both!) >> >> I made , (comma) the digit separator in TXR Lisp. Nobody uses _ in the >> real world. >> >> I understand that in some countries, that is the decimal point. That is >> not relevant in programming languages that use a period for that and are >> not localized. >> >> Comma means I can just copy and paste a figure from a financial document >> or application, or any other document which uses that convention. > > The comma couldn't be used in C without the possibility of breaking > existing code, since 123,456 is already a valid expression, and is > likely to occur in a context like `foo(123,456)`. > > C23 borrowed 123'456 from C++ rather than 123_456 (which I would have > preferred). C++ chose 123'456 because the C++ already used the > underscore for user-defined literals. Apparently some countries, such > as Switzerland, use the apostrophe as a digit separator. > In my compiler, I did both ' and _, ... Personally though, I prefer using _ as a digit separator in these scenarios. But, yeah, can't use comma without creating syntactic ambiguity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-03 19:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20250403121946.134@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #391884 |
On 2025-04-03, BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/3/2025 1:12 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes: >>> On 2025-04-03, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>>> On 02/04/2025 17:20, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: >>>>>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:33:46 +0100 >>>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> gabbled: >>>>>>> On 02/04/2025 16:12, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: >>>>>>>> Meh. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What's the problem with it? Here, tell me at a glance the magnitude of >>>>>>> this number: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 10000000000 >>>>>> >>>>>> And how often do you hard code values that large into a program? Almost >>>>>> never I imagine unless its some hex value to set flags in a word. >>>>> >>>>> Every day, several times a day. 16 hex digit constants are very >>>>> common in my work. The digit separator really helps with readability, >>>>> although I would have preferred '_' over "'". >>>> >>>> Oh, I thought C23 used '_', since Python uses that. I prefer single >>>> quote as that is not shifted on my keyboard. (My language projects just >>>> allow both!) >>> >>> I made , (comma) the digit separator in TXR Lisp. Nobody uses _ in the >>> real world. >>> >>> I understand that in some countries, that is the decimal point. That is >>> not relevant in programming languages that use a period for that and are >>> not localized. >>> >>> Comma means I can just copy and paste a figure from a financial document >>> or application, or any other document which uses that convention. >> >> The comma couldn't be used in C without the possibility of breaking >> existing code, since 123,456 is already a valid expression, and is >> likely to occur in a context like `foo(123,456)`. >> >> C23 borrowed 123'456 from C++ rather than 123_456 (which I would have >> preferred). C++ chose 123'456 because the C++ already used the >> underscore for user-defined literals. Apparently some countries, such >> as Switzerland, use the apostrophe as a digit separator. >> > > In my compiler, I did both ' and _, ... > Personally though, I prefer using _ as a digit separator in these scenarios. > > But, yeah, can't use comma without creating syntactic ambiguity. False; you can't use comma because of an /existing/ ambiguity. (In fact you could still use a comma; the "only" problem is you would break some programs. If this is your own language that nobody else uses, that might not be a significant objection.) When you've designed the language such that f(1,234.00) is a function call with two arguments, equivalent to f(1, 124.00), that's where you created the ambiguity. Your rules for tokenizing and parsing may be unambiguous, but it's visually ambiguous to a human. You should have seen it coming when allowing comma punctuators to separate arguments, without any surrounding whitespace being required. Now you can't have nice things, like the comma digit separators that everyone uses in the English speaking world that uses . for the decimal separators. By the way ... One programming language that has comma separators is Fortran, by the way. Fortran persisted in providing this feature in spite of shooting itself in the foot with ambiguities. When Fortran was being designed, people were naive in writing compilers. They thought that it would simplify things if they removed all spaces from the code before lexically scanning it and parsing. Thus "DO I = 1, 10" becomes "DOI=1,10" and "FO I = 1, 10" becomes "FOI=1,10" After that you have to figure out that "DOI=1,10" is the header of a DO loop which steps I from 1 to 10, whereas "FOI=1,10" assigns 110 to variable FOI. Removing spaces before scanning anythning is a bad idea. Not requiring spaces between certain tokens is also a bad idea. In the token sequence 3) we wouldn't want to require a space between 3 and ). But it's a good idea to require 1,3 to be 1, 3 (if two numeric tokens separated by a comma are intended and not the number 1,3). Commas are "fluff punctuators". They could be removed without making a difference to the abstract syntax. Fun fact: early Lisp (when it was called LISP) had commas in lists. They were optional. (1, 2, 3) or (1 2 3). Your choice. Comma separation causes problems when arguments can be empty! In C preprocessing MAC() is actually a macro with one argument, which is empty. MAC(,) is a macro with two empty arguments and so on. You cannot write a macro call with zero arguments. Now, if macros didn't use commas, there wouldn't be a problem at all: MAC() -> zero args; MAC(abc) -> one arg; MAC(abc 2) -> two args. Wow, consistency. And no dangling comma nonsense to deal with in complex, variadic macros! -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-03 21:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vsms75$1i8ud$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391947 |
On 03/04/2025 20:37, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-04-03, BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In my compiler, I did both ' and _, ...
>> Personally though, I prefer using _ as a digit separator in these scenarios.
>>
>> But, yeah, can't use comma without creating syntactic ambiguity.
>
> False; you can't use comma because of an /existing/ ambiguity.
Commas are overwhelmingly used to separate list elements in programming
languages.
They only become possible for numeric separators if you abandon any sort
of normal syntax and use one based, for example, on Lisp.
Even then, someone looking at your language and seeing:
55,688
isn't going to to see the number 55688, they will see two numbers, 55
and 688, because that is what is what they expect from a typical
programming language.
Even when they normally use "," for decimal point, they're not going to
see 55.688 either, for the same reason.
In my view, comma is 100 times more valuable as a list separator, than
in being able to write 1,000,000 (which I can do as 1'000'000 or
1_000_000 or even 1 million).
I only use commas for output to be viewed as something that is pure
numeric data, and not source code (so viewed by people who may not be
programmers). Even then, the separator can be anything:
1,000,000 decimal
1011'0001 binary
7FFF'FFFF hex
I wouldn't use commas for non-decimal; it looks weird.
>
> Comma separation causes problems when arguments can be empty!
It seems to be the other way around: how many missing arguments are
there here between a and b:
F(a b)
When written as F(a,,,b) then it becomes clearer. (This is if you allow
omitted in-between arguments, which I no longer do.)
> In C preprocessing MAC() is actually a macro with one argument,
> which is empty.
I assume MAC() is a macro invocation? Then MAC could equally be a macro
with zero arguments, and none is provided.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-04 02:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vsnhq6$291i3$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391949 |
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 21:48:40 +0100, bart wrote: > Commas are overwhelmingly used to separate list elements in programming > languages. Not just separate, but terminate. All the reasonable languages allow trailing commas.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-09 12:49 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20250409124900.00000fa1@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #391965 |
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 02:57:10 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 21:48:40 +0100, bart wrote:
>
> > Commas are overwhelmingly used to separate list elements in
> > programming languages.
>
> Not just separate, but terminate.
I disagree. I am in favor of optional trailing commas rather than
mandatory ones.
> All the reasonable languages allow
> trailing commas.
Are your sure that C Standard does not allow trailing commas?
That is, they are obviously legal in initializer lists.
All compilers that I tried reject trailing comma in function calls.
For example
void bar(int);
void foo(void) {
bar(1,);
}
MSVC:
comma.c(3): error C2059: syntax error: ')'
clang:
comma.c:3:9: error: expected expression
3 | bar(1,);
| ^
gcc:
comma.c: In function 'foo':
comma.c:3:9: error: expected expression before ')' token
3 | bar(1,);
| ^
comma.c:3:3: error: too many arguments to function 'bar'
3 | bar(1,);
| ^~~
comma.c:1:6: note: declared here
1 | void bar(int);
| ^~~
But is it (rejection) really required by the Standard? I don't know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-09 15:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vt5r34$inuo$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392247 |
On 09/04/2025 11:49, Michael S wrote: > On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 02:57:10 -0000 (UTC) > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >> On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 21:48:40 +0100, bart wrote: >> >>> Commas are overwhelmingly used to separate list elements in >>> programming languages. >> >> Not just separate, but terminate. > > I disagree. I am in favor of optional trailing commas rather than > mandatory ones. I am certainly in favour of them for things like initialiser lists and enum declarations. > >> All the reasonable languages allow >> trailing commas. > > Are your sure that C Standard does not allow trailing commas? > That is, they are obviously legal in initializer lists. > All compilers that I tried reject trailing comma in function calls. > ... > But is it (rejection) really required by the Standard? I don't know. > > Yes. The syntax (in 6.5.2p1) is : postfix-expression: ... postfix-expression ( argument-expression-list opt ) ... argument-expression-list : argument-expression argument-expression-list , argument-expression I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that it might be nice to allow a trailing comma, at least in variadic function calls, but the syntax of C does not allow it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-09 12:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vt6an7$13tvo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392271 |
On 4/9/2025 8:01 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 09/04/2025 11:49, Michael S wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 02:57:10 -0000 (UTC)
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 21:48:40 +0100, bart wrote:
>>>
>>>> Commas are overwhelmingly used to separate list elements in
>>>> programming languages.
>>>
>>> Not just separate, but terminate.
>>
>> I disagree. I am in favor of optional trailing commas rather than
>> mandatory ones.
>
> I am certainly in favour of them for things like initialiser lists and
> enum declarations.
>
>>
>>> All the reasonable languages allow
>>> trailing commas.
>>
>> Are your sure that C Standard does not allow trailing commas?
>> That is, they are obviously legal in initializer lists.
>> All compilers that I tried reject trailing comma in function calls.
>>
> ...
>> But is it (rejection) really required by the Standard? I don't know.
>>
>>
>
> Yes. The syntax (in 6.5.2p1) is :
>
> postfix-expression:
> ...
> postfix-expression ( argument-expression-list opt )
> ...
>
> argument-expression-list :
> argument-expression
> argument-expression-list , argument-expression
>
>
>
> I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that it might be nice to
> allow a trailing comma, at least in variadic function calls, but the
> syntax of C does not allow it.
>
Yeah, pretty much.
It might have also been interesting if C allowed optional named arguments:
int foo(int x=3, int y=4)
{
return x+y;
}
foo() => 7
foo(.y=2) => 5
Likely would be following any fixed arguments (if present), and likely
(for sake of implementation sanity) named arguments and varargs being
mutually exclusive (alternative being that named arguments precede
varargs if both are used).
Well, at least ".y=val" as "y: val" likely wouldn't go over well even if
it is what several other languages with this feature used (well or,
"y=val", which is used in some others).
In the most likely case, the named argument form would be transformed
into the equivalent fixed argument form at compile time.
So: "foo(.y=2)" would be functionally equivalent to "foo(3,2)".
...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web