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 | 18 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 23 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-28 20:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <877c0vxlnu.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #393943 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> On 2025-06-28 23:03, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> [ Some technical troubles - in case this post appeared already 30
>> minutes ago (I don't see it), please ignore this re-sent post. ]
>>
>> On 28.06.2025 02:56, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 27.06.2025 02:10, Keith Thompson wrote:
> ...
>>>>> BCD uses 4 bits to represent values from 0 to 9. That's about 83%
>>>>> efficent relative to pure binary. (And it still can't represent 1/3.)
>>>>
>>>> That's a problem of where your numbers stem from. "1/3" is a formula!
>>>
>>> 1/3 is also a C expression with the value 0. But what I was
>>> referring to was the real number 1/3, the unique real number that
>>> yields one when multiplied by three.
>>
>> Yes, sure. That was also how I interpreted it; that you meant (in
>> "C" parlance) 1.0/3.0.
>
> No, it is very much the point that the C expression 1.0/3.0 cannot have
> the value he's talking about (except in the unlikely event that
> FLT_RADIX is a multiple of 3).
Exactly -- or perhaps I should say precisely.
--
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 | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-29 20:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <103s1pe$1lq7e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393943 |
On 29.06.2025 05:18, James Kuyper wrote: > On 2025-06-28 23:03, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >> [ Some technical troubles - in case this post appeared already 30 >> minutes ago (I don't see it), please ignore this re-sent post. ] >> >> On 28.06.2025 02:56, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: >>>> On 27.06.2025 02:10, Keith Thompson wrote: > ... >>>>> BCD uses 4 bits to represent values from 0 to 9. That's about 83% >>>>> efficent relative to pure binary. (And it still can't represent 1/3.) >>>> >>>> That's a problem of where your numbers stem from. "1/3" is a formula! >>> >>> 1/3 is also a C expression with the value 0. But what I was >>> referring to was the real number 1/3, the unique real number that >>> yields one when multiplied by three. >> >> Yes, sure. That was also how I interpreted it; that you meant (in >> "C" parlance) 1.0/3.0. > > No, it is very much the point that the C expression 1.0/3.0 cannot have > the value he's talking about [...] I was talking about the Real Value. Indicated by the formula '1/3'. When Keith spoke about that being '0' I refined it to '1.0/3.0' to address this misunderstanding. (That's all to say here about that.) (For the _main points_ I tried to express I refer you to the longer post I just posted in reply to Keith's post.) Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-30 21:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <60cecd5f-dc44-44bf-9c9b-2764a1a705fa@alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #393953 |
On 2025-06-29 14:48, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 29.06.2025 05:18, James Kuyper wrote: >> On 2025-06-28 23:03, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >>> [ Some technical troubles - in case this post appeared already 30 >>> minutes ago (I don't see it), please ignore this re-sent post. ] >>> >>> On 28.06.2025 02:56, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: >>>>> On 27.06.2025 02:10, Keith Thompson wrote: >> ... >>>>>> BCD uses 4 bits to represent values from 0 to 9. That's about 83% >>>>>> efficent relative to pure binary. (And it still can't represent 1/3.) >>>>> >>>>> That's a problem of where your numbers stem from. "1/3" is a formula! >>>> >>>> 1/3 is also a C expression with the value 0. But what I was >>>> referring to was the real number 1/3, the unique real number that >>>> yields one when multiplied by three. >>> >>> Yes, sure. That was also how I interpreted it; that you meant (in >>> "C" parlance) 1.0/3.0. >> >> No, it is very much the point that the C expression 1.0/3.0 cannot have >> the value he's talking about [...] > > I was talking about the Real Value. Indicated by the formula '1/3'. > When Keith spoke about that being '0' I refined it to '1.0/3.0' to > address this misunderstanding. (That's all to say here about that.) The real number 1/3 has a different value from the C expression 1/3 (which is 0), and also from the C expression 1.0/3.0 (unless FLT_RADIX is a multiple of 3). It only spreads confusion to refer to 1.0/3.0 as if it had the value that Keith was talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-28 20:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8734bjxl1f.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #393942 |
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
> On 28.06.2025 02:56, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> On 27.06.2025 02:10, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> But not all decimal floating point implementations used "hex
> floating point".
>>>>>
>>>>> Burroughs medium systems had BCD floating point - one of the advantages
>>>>> was that it could exactly represent any floating point number that
>>>>> could be specified with a 100 digit mantissa and a 2 digit exponent.
>>>>
>>>> BCD uses 4 bits to represent values from 0 to 9. That's about 83%
>>>> efficent relative to pure binary. (And it still can't represent 1/3.)
>>>
>>> That's a problem of where your numbers stem from. "1/3" is a formula!
>>
>> 1/3 is also a C expression with the value 0. But what I was
>> referring to was the real number 1/3, the unique real number that
>> yields one when multiplied by three.
>
> Yes, sure. That was also how I interpreted it; that you meant (in
> "C" parlance) 1.0/3.0.
As mentioned elsethread, I was referring to the real value.
1.0/3.0 as a C expression yields a value of type double, typically
0.333333333333333314829616256247390992939472198486328125 or
0x1.5555555555555p-2 (Unless FLT_RADIX is a multiple of 3, which
pretty much never happens.)
>> My point is that any choice of radix in a floating-point format
>> means that there are going to be some useful real numbers you
>> can't represent.
>
> Yes, sure. Sqrt(2.0) for example, or 'pi', or 'e', or your 1.0/3.0
> example. These numbers have in common that there's no finite length
> standard representation; you usually represent them as formulas (as
> in your example), or in computers as constants in abbreviated form.
Again, by 1/3 I meant the real number that is the mathematical result of
that formula, and of 2/6, and of 1-2/3, not the formula itself.
> In numerics you have various places where errors appear in principle
> and accumulate. One of the errors is when transferred from (and to)
> external representation. Another one is when performing calculations
> with internally imprecise represented numbers.
>
> The point with decimal encoding addresses the lossless (and fast[*])
> input/output of given [finite] numbers. Numbers that have been (and
> are) used e.g. in financial contexts (Billions of Euros and Cents).
> And you can also perform exact arithmetic in the typical operations
> (sum, multiply, subtract)[**] without errors.[***]
Which is convenient only because we happen to use decimal notation
when writing numbers.
[...]
--
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 | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-29 20:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <103s1b9$1lmh5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393945 |
On 29.06.2025 05:51, Keith Thompson wrote: > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: >> On 28.06.2025 02:56, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: >>>> On 27.06.2025 02:10, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >>>>> [...] >>>>>> But not all decimal floating point implementations used "hex >> floating point". >>>>>> >>>>>> Burroughs medium systems had BCD floating point - one of the advantages >>>>>> was that it could exactly represent any floating point number that >>>>>> could be specified with a 100 digit mantissa and a 2 digit exponent. >>>>> >>>>> BCD uses 4 bits to represent values from 0 to 9. That's about 83% >>>>> efficent relative to pure binary. (And it still can't represent 1/3.) >>>> >>>> That's a problem of where your numbers stem from. "1/3" is a formula! >>> >>> 1/3 is also a C expression with the value 0. But what I was >>> referring to was the real number 1/3, the unique real number that >>> yields one when multiplied by three. >> >> Yes, sure. That was also how I interpreted it; that you meant (in >> "C" parlance) 1.0/3.0. > > As mentioned elsethread, I was referring to the real value. Yes, me too, when I saw your original 1/3. - You *then* spoke about that being 0 in "C" (with integer division) I explained that I took it as what I still think was what you were saying with "1/3" being the real value, but (since to address your 1/3==0) I explained that I meant the real value (that you would get in "C" [approximately] by 1.0/3.0, which of course differs from the real math number). I guess we might have been talking cross-purpose. What I was trying to explain were different things on different levels. a) Errors on input/output conversion. the value 1.33 - BCD no errors, two's-complement binary w/ errors; the real value 1.333333... - generally an error (infinite string) 0.10 - in BCD no errors, in binary errors; b) Errors in calculations. all exact internal representation of external quantities can be calculated correctly (with the previously presented conditions) in decimal; examples 0.10, 1.33, 1.33333333333333333333333, but *not* 1.33333333333333333333333... (the infinite form, whether expressed as depicted here with '...' or whether expressed as formula '1/3'. > 1.0/3.0 as a C expression yields a value of type double, typically > 0.333333333333333314829616256247390992939472198486328125 or There are numbers that can be expressed accurately in binary; as 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 (for example). Those can also be expressed accurately with decimal encoding. Other finite numbers/number-sequences can be expressed accurately with decimal encoding, as 0.1, 1.33 (for example), but only specific ones can be represented accurately with binary encoding. With infinite sequences of digits you will have problems with both internal representations (binary, decimal); as you see with specific real values as 'sqrt(2)', 'pi', 'e', '1/3' (for example) which are cut at some decimal place internally depending on supported "register width". > [...] > >> In numerics you have various places where errors appear in principle >> and accumulate. One of the errors is when transferred from (and to) >> external representation. Another one is when performing calculations >> with internally imprecise represented numbers. >> >> The point with decimal encoding addresses the lossless (and fast[*]) >> input/output of given [finite] numbers. Numbers that have been (and >> are) used e.g. in financial contexts (Billions of Euros and Cents). >> And you can also perform exact arithmetic in the typical operations >> (sum, multiply, subtract)[**] without errors.[***] > > Which is convenient only because we happen to use decimal notation > when writing numbers. But that exactly is the point! With decimal encoding you get an exact internal picture of the external representations of the numbers, if only because the external representations are finite. (The same holds for the output.) With binary encoding you have the first degradation during that I/O process. Decimal encoding, OTOH, is robust here. That's why it's so advantageous specifically for the financial sector. It would not be the best choice where a lot of internal calculations are done, as (for example) in calculating hydrodynamic processes. Later, when it comes to internal calculations, yet more deficiencies appear (with both encodings; but decimal is more robust in the basic operations, where in binary the previous errors contribute to further degradation). (I completely left out algorithmic error management here (numerics), because it applies in principle to all algorithms [mostly] independent of the encoding; this would go too far.) BTW, not only mainframes and the major programming languages used for financial software supported decimal encoding. Also pocket calculators did that. (For example, the BASIC programmable and interactive usable Sharp PC 1401 supported real numbers processing using decimal encoding (10 digits visible BCD, and 2 "hidden" digits for internal rounding, 2 digits exponent, plus information for signs, etc., all in all 8 bytes; implemented with in-memory calculations, not done in registers.) Decimal encoding; it's fast, has good properties (WRT errors and error propagation), but requires more space (in case that matters). Janis > > [...] >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-29 20:52 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" - correction |
| Message-ID | <103s21b$1lskm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393952 |
In my posts, all values of the form "1.3333..." (or similar) should of course have been "0.3333..." (or the respective forms), as a representation of '1/3'. - Sorry for the typos! Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-29 12:14 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" - correction |
| Message-ID | <103s3am$1m672$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393954 |
On 6/29/2025 11:52 AM, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > In my posts, all values of the form "1.3333..." (or similar) should > of course have been "0.3333..." (or the respective forms), as a > representation of '1/3'. - Sorry for the typos! .(3)? ;^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-27 14:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <iwx7Q.89893$MPn6.433@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #393916 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >[...] >> But not all decimal floating point implementations used "hex floating point". >> >> Burroughs medium systems had BCD floating point - one of the advantages >> was that it could exactly represent any floating point number that >> could be specified with a 100 digit mantissa and a 2 digit exponent. > >BCD uses 4 bits to represent values from 0 to 9. That's about 83% >efficent relative to pure binary. (And it still can't represent 1/3.) Ah, but reading a BCD memory dump is a joy compared to a binary system :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-27 14:52 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20250627145242.00000607@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #393914 |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 21:09:37 GMT scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > >On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 12:31:32 -0700 > >Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: > >> > On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:27:38 +0300, Michael S wrote: =20 > >> >> IMHO, a need for a common name for IEEE binary128 exists for > >> >> quite some time. For IEEE binary256 the real need didn't emerge > >> >> yet. But it will emerge in the hopefully near future. =20 > >> > > >> > A thought: the main advantage of binary types over decimal is > >> > supposed to be speed. Once you get up to larger precisions like > >> > that, the speed advantage becomes less clear, particularly since > >> > hardware support doesn=E2=80=99t seem forthcoming any time soon. > >> > There = > >are > >> > already variable-precision decimal floating-point libraries > >> > available. And with such calculations, C no longer offers a great > >> > performance advantage over a higher-level language, so you might > >> > as well use the higher-level language. > >> > > >> > <https://docs.python.org/3/library/decimal.html> =20 > >>=20 > >> I think there's an implicit assumption that, all else being equal, > >> decimal is better than binary. That's true in some contexts, > >> but not in all. > >>=20 > > > >My implicit assumption is that other sings being equal binary is > >better than anything else because it has the lowest variation in ULP > >to value ratio.=20 > >The fact that other things being equal binary fp also tends to be > >faster is a nice secondary advantage. For example, it is easy to > >imagine hardware that implements S/360 style hex floating point as > >fast or a little faster than binary fp, but numerec properties of it > >are much worse then sane implementations of binary fp. > > But not all decimal floating point implementations used "hex floating > point". > IBM's Hex floating point is not decimal. It's hex (base 16). > Burroughs medium systems had BCD floating point - one of the > advantages was that it could exactly represent any floating point > number that could be specified with a 100 digit mantissa and a 2 > digit exponent. > > This was a memory-to-memory architecture, so no floating point > registers to worry about. > > For financial calculations, a fixed point format (up to 100 digits) > was used. Using an implicit decimal point, rounding was a matter of > where the implicit decimal point was located in the up to 100 digit > field; so do your calculations in mills and truncate the result field > to the desired precision. > For fix point, anything "decimal" is even less useful than in floating point. I can't find any good explanation for use of "decimal" things in some early computers except that their designers were, may be, good engineers, but 2nd rate thinkers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-27 20:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <103mp1o$acaf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393923 |
On 27.06.2025 13:52, Michael S wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 21:09:37 GMT > scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: >> [..] > > For fix point, anything "decimal" is even less useful than in floating > point. I can't find any good explanation for use of "decimal" things in > some early computers [...] If not already obvious from the hints given in this thread you can search for the respective keywords. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-28 23:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <103pvkf$14vi6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393923 |
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 14:52:42 +0300, Michael S wrote: > For fix point, anything "decimal" is even less useful than in floating > point. I can't find any good explanation for use of "decimal" things in > some early computers except that their designers were, may be, good > engineers, but 2nd rate thinkers. IEEE-754 now includes decimal floating-point formats in addition to the older binary ones. I think this was originally a separate spec (IEEE-854), but it got rolled into the 2008 revision of IEEE-754. Many numeric experts scoffed at IEEE-754 when it first came out, particularly the features that reduced the surprise factor for less-expert users. Decimal arithmetic is more of the same. Safety-razor syndrome never quite goes away, does it ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-29 09:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <103renl$1aql2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393940 |
On 2025-06-28 19:59, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 14:52:42 +0300, Michael S wrote: > >> For fix point, anything "decimal" is even less useful than in floating >> point. I can't find any good explanation for use of "decimal" things in >> some early computers except that their designers were, may be, good >> engineers, but 2nd rate thinkers. > > IEEE-754 now includes decimal floating-point formats in addition to the > older binary ones. I think this was originally a separate spec (IEEE-854), > but it got rolled into the 2008 revision of IEEE-754. It's somewhat more complicated than that. IEEE-784 is a radix-independent standard, otherwise equivalent to IEEE-754. Basically, IEEE-754 is "IEEE-784 with radix==2". A conforming implementation of any version of C could also have used "IEEE-784 with radix==10". However, the decimal floating point formats added to IEEE-754 in 2008 were not simply "IEEE-784 with radix==10", and therefore could not have been used as standard floating types in earlier versions of the C standard. See <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_floating_point> for more details. There are real systems that implement these new formats in hardware. A lot of wording was added and changed in the C standard to allow these new formats to be used as C's new decimal floating types.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-29 00:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <106967d$2d4ra$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393947 |
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 09:23:01 -0400, James Kuyper wrote: > It's somewhat more complicated than that. IEEE-784 is a > radix-independent standard, otherwise equivalent to IEEE-754. Did you mean IEEE-854?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-29 21:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <106brjn$2v1bf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #394006 |
On 2025-07-28 20:56, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 09:23:01 -0400, James Kuyper wrote: > >> It's somewhat more complicated than that. IEEE-784 is a >> radix-independent standard, otherwise equivalent to IEEE-754. > > Did you mean IEEE-854? Yes - Sorry for the confusion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-11 09:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <867c3qbqrx.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #391822 |
Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> writes:
> Thought people here might be interested in this image on Jens Gustedt's
> blog, which translates section 6.2.5, "Types", of the C23 standard
> into a graph of inclusions:
>
> https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2025/03/29/a-diagram-of-c23-basic-types/
That diagram gets an F for presentation.
I can't help feeling that the information could have been
presented in a form that is simpler and easier to take in.
Disclaimer: the outline below is meant to convey all the
information that is present in the diagram (and perhaps a tiny
bit more), but I'm not sure I got everything, and I probably
didn't. YGWYPF.
Disclaimer 2: the notation used is meant to be self-explanatory.
Don't blame me if it isn't. :/
Scalar
Pointer
[regular]
nullptr_t
Arithmetic (basic)
Complex (floating)
_Complex float
_Complex double
_Complex long double
Real
Real floating (floating)
decimal floating
_Decimal32
_Decimal64
_Decimal128
[plain]
float
double
long double
Integer
Enumeration (! basic)
Standard
char (char) (promotes)
Standard Signed Integer (signed integer)
signed char (char) (promotes)
signed short (promotes)
signed int
signed long
signed long long
[unadorned int]
Standard Unsigned Integer (unsigned integer)
_Bool
unsigned char (char)
unsigned short (promotes)
unsigned int
unsigned long
unsigned long long
Extended
Extended Signed (signed integer)
Extended Unigned (unsigned integer)
Bit-precise integers
Bit-precise signed integer [* widths]
Bit-precise unsigned integer [* widths]
unsigned _BitInt[1]
Incidentally, [unadorned int] is meant to reflect the difference
between using 'int' and 'signed int' for the type of a bitfield.
I don't know if that distinction still exists in C23.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-11 12:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <871ptyscn0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #392395 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
[...]
> Incidentally, [unadorned int] is meant to reflect the difference
> between using 'int' and 'signed int' for the type of a bitfield.
> I don't know if that distinction still exists in C23.
It does.
--
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 | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-11 09:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8634eebq5w.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #391822 |
Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> writes: > Thought people here might be interested in this image on Jens Gustedt's > blog, which translates section 6.2.5, "Types", of the C23 standard > into a graph of inclusions: > > https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2025/03/29/a-diagram-of-c23-basic-types/ By the way, regarding the question of why types like size_t are not in the diagram, there is a simple explanation. All the types shown in the diagram are guaranteed to be distinct.[*] Types like size_t, ptrdiff_t, and so forth, are not new types, but simply different names for a type already represented in the diagram. [*] This statement assumes that a bit-precise type whose width matches one of the standard integer types is still a distinct type. I don't know if C23 actually follows that rule. Editorial comment: my understanding is that there is an asymmetry regarding the bit-precise types, in that there is an unsigned bit-precise type of width 1, but not a signed bit-precise type of width 1. Assuming that is so, IMO it is a galactically stupid omission: a signed bit-precise integer of width 1 would very naturally hold the two values 0 and -1, which is a useful type to have in some circumstances, and symmetry would be preserved. Someone didn't have their Wheaties that morning when that decision was made.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-11 13:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87wmbqqv60.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #392396 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
[...]
> [*] This statement assumes that a bit-precise type whose width
> matches one of the standard integer types is still a distinct type.
> I don't know if C23 actually follows that rule.
I believe it does. N3301 6.2.5 :
A *bit-precise signed integer type* is designated as _BitInt(N)
where N is an integer constant expression that specifies the number
of bits that are used to represent the type, including the sign
bit. Each value of N designates a distinct type.
It's explicit that two bit-precise types with different values of N are
distinct. It's implicit, I think, that any such types are distinct from
other integer types.
> Editorial comment: my understanding is that there is an asymmetry
> regarding the bit-precise types, in that there is an unsigned
> bit-precise type of width 1, but not a signed bit-precise type of
> width 1.
There is. N3301 6.7.2 :
The parenthesized constant expression that follows the _BitInt
keyword shall be an integer constant expression N that specifies
the width (6.2.6.2) of the type. The value of N for unsigned
_BitInt shall be greater than or equal to 1. The value of N
for _BitInt shall be greater than or equal to 2. The value of
N shall be less than or equal to the value of BITINT_MAXWIDTH
(see 5.2.4.2.1).
But a bit-field defined as `signed int bf:1` can hold the values
0 and -1 (if I initialize it to 1 it compares less than 0).
Incidentally, gcc 15 (pre-release) on my system has
BITINT_MAXWIDTH = 65535, and clang (18.1.3 and 21 pre-release) has
BITINT_MAXWIDTH = 8388608 (2**23).
> Assuming that is so, IMO it is a galactically stupid
> omission: a signed bit-precise integer of width 1 would very
> naturally hold the two values 0 and -1, which is a useful type to
> have in some circumstances, and symmetry would be preserved.
> Someone didn't have their Wheaties that morning when that decision
> was made.
I agree that it's unfortunate, though I don't feel as strongly about it.
Something else that I consider unfortunate is that C23 allows bit-fields
of types bool, int, signed int, unsigned int, a bit-precise integer
type, "or other implementation-defined type". It doesn't require
implementations to accept, for example, bit-fields of type unsigned
long. Bit-precise types let you have bit-fields of arbitrary large
widths, but allowing standard types other than [[un]signed] int
would have been easy and useful.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 23 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web