Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #392008 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-04-04 16:23 -0300 |
| Last post | 2025-10-16 00:43 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 698 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 16:23 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-04 21:18 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 17:31 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-04 20:34 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 17:37 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-04 21:01 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 14:36 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-04 20:39 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 17:43 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 17:46 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-08 19:00 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-05 14:54 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-05 17:54 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-05 16:10 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-05 23:37 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-06 14:41 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-06 10:52 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-06 14:45 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-04 13:48 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 17:58 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-06 05:47 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-06 16:13 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-06 07:32 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-06 19:03 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-07 05:45 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-07 21:02 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-07 19:31 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 10:12 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 12:35 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 16:50 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 17:28 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-08 10:32 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 19:04 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-08 14:18 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 23:38 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-08 16:27 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 01:02 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 22:55 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 22:56 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-09 15:07 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 00:49 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 00:20 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-10 12:08 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 16:23 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 12:00 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 04:28 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 14:34 +0100
Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-10 14:33 +0000
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 16:12 +0100
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-11 00:18 +0200
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 00:10 +0100
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 17:41 -0700
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-11 02:45 +0000
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 10:14 +0200
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 12:32 +0100
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-11 14:50 +0300
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 12:56 +0100
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-11 15:12 +0300
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-11 15:12 +0200
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 15:55 +0100
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 15:02 +0200
Re: Endless complaints Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-11 10:03 -0700
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 12:26 -0700
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 15:27 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 15:23 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 00:49 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 17:59 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-11 14:26 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 16:11 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-11 17:22 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 20:46 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 14:10 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-13 20:45 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-11 19:05 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-12 16:37 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 13:25 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-13 11:40 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-13 20:17 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 17:51 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-13 22:23 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-14 11:07 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-14 15:03 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-14 23:17 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-14 11:22 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-13 18:15 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 11:20 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-05 16:12 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-05 16:36 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-05 17:01 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 16:51 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-10 18:31 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 19:14 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 19:36 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 19:29 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 00:02 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-10 18:52 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 20:51 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-10 22:55 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 23:00 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 12:14 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-04 22:01 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 21:20 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 21:22 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 21:24 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 20:11 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-11 10:07 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 16:25 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-09 15:38 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 16:42 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-09 17:43 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-13 19:34 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-04-09 07:15 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 13:51 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 11:42 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 13:04 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 14:06 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-11 12:27 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 13:11 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 14:11 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 13:16 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 14:24 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 11:51 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 14:36 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 14:13 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 16:00 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 16:37 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-10 20:40 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-11 12:20 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-11 17:30 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-09 12:58 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 14:23 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-09 12:50 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 14:44 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-10 11:55 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-10 14:46 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 15:41 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-10 21:05 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 20:27 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 20:57 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 11:17 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 12:51 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 16:25 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 15:50 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 17:24 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 17:56 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 20:29 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 13:58 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 22:24 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 14:36 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 00:13 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 16:59 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 02:27 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 18:53 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-12 02:43 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 12:50 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-12 12:57 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 14:33 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-13 04:53 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-12 15:43 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 17:52 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-12 17:40 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-13 00:09 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-13 21:40 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-13 20:08 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-14 00:30 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-13 21:07 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 18:33 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-13 22:57 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 20:26 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 14:58 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 21:58 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 18:22 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 14:52 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-13 20:50 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 19:17 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-12 09:59 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 15:15 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-12 06:33 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 12:00 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-13 04:27 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-13 12:33 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-13 12:36 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-13 14:54 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-13 17:48 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-14 05:59 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-14 14:11 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-13 14:58 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-13 14:34 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-13 17:39 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-14 06:23 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-14 11:16 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2025-04-14 12:51 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-14 12:12 +0100
Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-14 14:18 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-14 15:33 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-14 16:22 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-15 09:17 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 11:30 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-15 15:34 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-15 13:51 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-04 07:40 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-04 07:31 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-04 18:08 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-05 10:42 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-10 06:43 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-05-10 15:56 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-10 17:48 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-05-11 08:20 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-10 14:29 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-05-11 08:21 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-11 12:02 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-05-11 15:30 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-11 16:29 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-11 18:49 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-11 14:41 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-11 17:43 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-11 15:06 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-11 18:30 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-11 18:15 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-11 19:09 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 00:16 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 02:23 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 07:19 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-12 15:34 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 22:42 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 07:31 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-14 21:12 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-13 09:30 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-13 22:28 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 13:31 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-14 20:44 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 21:45 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-12 17:24 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-12 00:07 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 00:43 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 02:27 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-12 17:18 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-28 09:54 -0800
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-28 16:42 -0800
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-31 07:03 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-31 03:53 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-31 18:26 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-01-31 18:33 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-31 21:02 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-12 19:53 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 23:03 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 19:04 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-12 17:08 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 13:38 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-13 12:41 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-13 23:16 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 14:35 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-13 15:10 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 15:41 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-13 18:38 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 19:37 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-13 23:54 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-13 21:19 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-13 21:12 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 22:38 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-01 21:55 -0800
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-03-01 23:37 -0800
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-14 03:35 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:54 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-14 06:31 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-06-10 06:01 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-14 12:24 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-14 13:57 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-14 22:27 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-15 09:32 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-14 13:00 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-14 13:20 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-14 23:20 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-15 11:23 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-06 13:55 -0800
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-11 17:59 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-05-12 10:11 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-12 17:09 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-11 01:09 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-11 17:30 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-12 16:18 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-14 11:09 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-13 15:57 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-04 13:52 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-15 13:19 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 18:17 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-15 19:07 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 21:46 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-16 01:41 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-15 22:37 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-16 03:30 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 20:50 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-16 18:11 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-16 18:43 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-16 20:05 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-03 03:47 -0800
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-02-03 04:21 -0800
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-02-04 23:40 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-02-05 08:10 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-05 11:30 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2026-02-05 15:21 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-16 14:12 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-16 07:35 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 12:32 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-16 15:08 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-16 14:23 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-04 21:32 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 15:31 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 15:01 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 15:34 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> - 2025-04-19 11:01 +1000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-19 09:20 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-16 14:21 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 15:06 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-16 10:47 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 16:14 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-16 18:18 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-16 12:28 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 13:03 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 23:14 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 17:26 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 02:26 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 20:14 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 15:37 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 15:19 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-18 16:58 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 18:27 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-19 09:09 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-17 00:59 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 02:09 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-16 21:43 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 23:42 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-16 23:49 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 01:48 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 19:18 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 12:16 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 14:36 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-17 11:47 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 20:18 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-17 12:55 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 21:44 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-17 15:32 -0700
Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-04-17 21:21 +0000
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2025-04-17 22:29 +0000
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-04-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2025-04-18 18:33 +0000
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 20:10 +0100
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 16:07 +0100
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-18 16:52 +0000
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-24 22:43 +0200
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-25 07:50 +0200
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-04-25 07:04 +0100
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-25 10:38 +0200
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-25 10:42 +0200
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-18 15:24 +0000
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2025-04-18 15:48 +0000
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 16:57 +0100
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 18:46 +0200
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 18:40 +0100
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-19 08:36 +0200
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 17:49 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 02:19 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 17:47 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 14:41 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-16 14:09 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-16 17:37 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-06 05:59 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-07 12:32 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-07 14:54 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-07 13:50 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-11 23:48 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 15:45 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-16 15:44 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 13:18 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-15 19:55 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-16 07:19 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-16 07:44 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 12:01 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 16:40 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-18 14:10 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 23:27 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-19 08:27 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 11:26 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-19 13:32 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 14:05 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-19 12:54 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 20:57 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-19 14:07 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-20 00:34 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 12:18 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-20 12:43 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 18:46 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-20 20:51 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-20 15:36 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 00:29 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-20 19:08 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 12:26 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-21 03:16 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 12:57 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-21 18:43 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 20:57 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-21 20:25 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 00:33 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-21 23:46 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 10:32 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-22 01:06 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 02:24 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 10:47 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 11:28 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-22 19:19 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-22 19:26 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 21:03 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-22 21:40 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-23 00:43 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-22 16:59 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-23 00:01 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-23 11:15 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-23 10:58 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-23 14:50 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-23 16:00 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-23 17:39 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-24 07:41 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-24 09:31 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-23 17:31 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-23 18:43 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-23 18:43 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-23 21:49 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-24 15:12 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-24 15:28 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-24 17:21 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-24 18:30 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-24 17:59 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-25 15:19 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-24 07:40 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-24 09:26 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-24 10:52 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-24 12:44 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-24 14:31 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-24 14:25 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-24 14:51 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-24 15:32 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-24 18:49 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-24 18:03 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-24 18:26 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-25 08:53 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-04 22:17 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-09-26 02:00 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-25 02:56 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-25 13:48 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-25 17:51 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-25 17:48 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-24 18:51 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-23 09:01 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 09:32 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 09:14 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-20 15:07 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-04-20 23:19 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-21 13:51 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 16:36 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-21 21:06 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 23:54 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 16:12 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 01:26 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 18:22 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 11:43 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-22 14:15 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 23:52 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-22 16:22 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 10:40 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 18:25 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 10:19 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 12:39 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 02:21 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 09:54 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-22 20:16 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 19:54 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-22 21:11 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 20:43 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-23 17:41 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-19 16:28 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 19:59 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 20:15 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 12:41 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 12:34 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-19 14:35 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 16:24 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-19 16:36 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-19 15:22 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 20:55 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-19 13:55 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-20 00:52 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 13:00 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-20 14:53 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-20 17:34 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-20 16:25 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-20 19:01 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 18:10 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 18:07 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 17:55 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-20 17:28 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-21 03:07 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 13:46 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 14:21 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 00:14 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 00:19 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 15:39 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 10:12 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-21 22:16 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 01:12 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-22 03:31 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 12:33 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-22 14:36 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-22 16:10 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 17:27 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-22 17:48 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-22 14:31 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-22 22:39 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-22 17:53 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-22 15:02 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-23 19:05 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-23 18:52 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-23 13:22 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-21 07:34 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 13:26 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 13:39 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-04 21:35 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-19 15:15 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 20:36 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-19 19:43 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 11:27 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 11:25 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-20 11:25 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-20 16:53 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-16 12:29 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 12:38 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-16 19:15 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 15:28 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 14:44 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-15 06:14 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-15 06:57 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-15 09:25 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-16 11:45 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 16:57 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-20 15:00 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 17:45 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-24 22:35 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-25 07:46 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-25 10:29 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-25 14:22 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 11:15 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-15 15:25 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 13:55 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-15 13:33 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 15:30 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-15 18:22 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 17:42 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-15 20:14 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-16 07:39 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-15 20:37 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-16 12:09 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-16 12:04 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-15 14:13 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 15:41 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-16 11:58 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 15:07 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-14 23:12 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 01:35 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-15 14:05 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 15:44 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-15 15:31 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 17:38 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-12 14:39 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-12 14:21 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-12 15:52 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-12 16:32 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-13 16:26 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-13 14:48 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 15:01 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-11 18:24 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-13 21:03 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-13 20:56 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 11:24 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 01:30 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 02:35 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-27 09:17 -0800
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-27 15:28 -0800
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 11:15 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-13 20:57 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-13 20:53 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-13 22:14 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-13 21:03 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-14 06:43 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-14 09:00 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-15 09:40 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-15 09:18 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-15 10:39 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-14 08:44 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2025-04-11 19:45 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-11 16:00 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-15 15:44 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 20:21 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 15:43 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-11 02:12 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 20:44 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 11:33 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-10 15:14 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-10 16:25 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-10 21:42 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 11:35 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 15:49 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-10 20:57 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-11 14:37 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-11 11:16 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-11 18:31 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 11:10 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-11 14:02 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-11 15:24 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-11 18:46 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 12:01 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-08 10:47 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2025-04-09 09:00 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 11:36 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 14:54 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-08 10:59 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 11:51 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-09 12:56 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-06 16:26 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-06 16:02 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-06 16:53 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 19:45 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 15:23 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 15:35 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-04-07 03:56 +0042
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-07 09:16 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-04-06 14:18 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-06 17:08 +0200
Beyond the pale... (Was: do { quit; } else { }) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-04-07 16:08 +0000
Re: Beyond the pale... (Was: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-07 18:39 +0200
Re: Beyond the pale... (Was: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-07 23:30 +0000
Re: Beyond the pale... (Was: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-08 12:39 +0300
Re: Beyond the pale... (Was: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-08 16:57 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-07 08:06 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-06 08:14 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-06 23:48 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-07 09:21 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-07 04:50 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 16:40 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-09 15:01 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 17:04 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-09 16:26 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-09 17:54 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-09 17:26 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-09 17:07 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-09 19:11 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 20:21 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-09 19:35 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 19:09 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-09 19:29 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-13 14:55 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 14:35 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-14 11:22 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 10:34 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-09 19:09 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 19:11 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-09 19:18 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-13 14:54 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-13 15:36 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-14 11:19 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 11:44 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-13 15:13 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 14:46 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-13 16:07 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 14:05 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-14 11:31 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 10:37 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-09 15:31 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 19:07 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Wuns Haerst <Wuns.Haerst@wurstfabrik.at> - 2025-05-07 06:56 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-07 06:52 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Wuns Haerst <Wuns.Haerst@wurstfabrik.at> - 2025-05-07 15:46 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-08 06:04 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-08 14:24 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-27 09:15 -0800
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-27 15:36 -0800
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 11:09 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-06 02:58 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-06 12:05 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-04-18 10:30 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-10-08 14:14 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-10-08 09:59 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-10-08 16:05 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-10-08 17:08 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-10-08 16:35 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-10-15 16:04 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-10-08 16:06 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-10-15 23:04 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-10-15 20:41 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-10-16 00:43 +0100
Page 13 of 35 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 35 Next page →
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-31 03:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <10ljub5$2kfbu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #396509 |
On 28/01/2026 17:54, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > >> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >> In my opinion, keeping a function's definition and declarations >> consistent is absolutely worth it, even if the language might not >> require it. > > Without some sort of accompanying rationale, this unadorned > statement of opinion conveys no useful information. That's an ironically appropriate use of "this". If you'd said "that" it wouldn't have been true. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2026 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-31 18:26 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <20260131182619.00002361@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #396530 |
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 03:53:09 +0000 Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > On 28/01/2026 17:54, Tim Rentsch wrote: > > Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: > > >> In my opinion, keeping a function's definition and declarations > >> consistent is absolutely worth it, even if the language might not > >> require it. > > > > Without some sort of accompanying rationale, this unadorned > > statement of opinion conveys no useful information. > > That's an ironically appropriate use of "this". If you'd said "that" > it wouldn't have been true. > > Care to elaborate for the benifit of non-native English readers? Personally, in this particular context, I don't see how 'this' carries different meaning from 'that'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-31 18:33 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <YVrfR.453362$68Za.232981@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #396534 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 03:53:09 +0000 >Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> >wrote: > >> On 28/01/2026 17:54, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> > Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >> > >> >> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >> >> >> In my opinion, keeping a function's definition and declarations >> >> consistent is absolutely worth it, even if the language might not >> >> require it. >> > >> > Without some sort of accompanying rationale, this unadorned >> > statement of opinion conveys no useful information. >> >> That's an ironically appropriate use of "this". If you'd said "that" >> it wouldn't have been true. >> >> > >Care to elaborate for the benifit of non-native English readers? >Personally, in this particular context, I don't see how 'this' carries >different meaning from 'that'. > English is often ambiguous. 'This' in the context of Tim's response is ambiguous and could be interpreted to refer to Tim's response itself, rather than to Keith's statement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-31 21:02 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <20260131210240.00003af0@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #396535 |
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 18:33:28 GMT scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > >On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 03:53:09 +0000 > >Tristan Wibberley > ><tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > > > >> On 28/01/2026 17:54, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> > Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > >> > > >> >> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: > >> > >> >> In my opinion, keeping a function's definition and declarations > >> >> consistent is absolutely worth it, even if the language might > >> >> not require it. > >> > > >> > Without some sort of accompanying rationale, this unadorned > >> > statement of opinion conveys no useful information. > >> > >> That's an ironically appropriate use of "this". If you'd said > >> "that" it wouldn't have been true. > >> > >> > > > >Care to elaborate for the benifit of non-native English readers? > >Personally, in this particular context, I don't see how 'this' > >carries different meaning from 'that'. > > > > English is often ambiguous. 'This' in the context of Tim's > response is ambiguous and could be interpreted to refer to > Tim's response itself, rather than to Keith's statement. > Thank you
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-12 19:53 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vvu1la$1c54u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393340 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: [...] > It isn't just that checking the condition cannot be done in general. > To be reliable the parameter length information would need to be > part of the function's type. The problem is much deeper than that. The same pointer can point to different arrays, or different positions in the same array, during different passes through the same line of code. Some of those would violate this rule, others would not. I don't see how violating such a rule could ever be made a constraint violation. The violation would have to be detected in the code that sets the pointer's value before passing it, directly or indirectly, to the function with a "static" array length.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-12 23:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <86v7q5vygg.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #393365 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> [...]
>
>> It isn't just that checking the condition cannot be done in general.
>> To be reliable the parameter length information would need to be
>> part of the function's type.
>
> The problem is much deeper than that. The same pointer can point
> to different arrays, or different positions in the same array,
> during different passes through the same line of code. Some of
> those would violate this rule, others would not. I don't see how
> violating such a rule could ever be made a constraint violation.
> [...]
An implementation could issue a diagnostic whenever it could
determine that the requirement had been violated, and also
whenever it could not establish that the requirement was
satisfied. A message like
"this call to function foo() might not supply a large enough
array to satisfy an array static length requirement".
would, I think, satisfy the letter of the rule that any constraint
violation must result in at least one diagnostic being produced.
Granted, I think most people would find such behavior more
annoying than useful, but it does seem to be a way to meet the
stipulations for constraint violations, in letter even if not in
spirit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-12 19:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <867c2lxo4b.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #393340 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>
>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> It's main potential usefulness is not in the definition of the
>>>>> function, but in calls to the function. If the calls occur in
>>>>> a different translation unit from the definition, the compiler
>>>>> does not have the needed information.
>>>>
>>>> It does if the visible declaration has the same information.
>>>
>>> Like 'restrict', parameter array length information, specified by
>>> way of 'static', is ignored outside of function definitions. As
>>> was intended (with 'restrict' also).
>>
>> ? What "static" does when applied to an array parameter's length is to
>> render the behavior undefined if the function is called with a pointer
>> that points to an array that is shorter than the specified length. Are
>> you saying that it has no such effect except for inside the function
>> definition? I'm not sure what that would even mean - is the behavior
>> undefined only for recursive calls to the function?
>
> What I mean is that such uses of 'static' have no effect when
> used in declarations that are not part of a definition.
I need to correct myself. This statement is simply wrong. Giving a
parameter declarator a 'static' length specification, as part of any
function declaration whatsoever, has the same effect as it would if
it had been given on the function definition. To present an example,
if we have three source files, x.c, y.c, and z.c, with
/* x.c */
int foo( int v[] );
int
example(){
return foo( 0 );
}
/* y.c */
int
foo( int v[] ){
return v ? v[0] : -1;
}
/* z.c */
int foo( int v[ static 1 ] );
then because of the declaration of foo() in z.c, the call to foo()
in x.c has undefined behavior, because a "shall" requirement is
violated by passing a null pointer for parameter v, which must
point to an array with at least one element.
As best I can determine the description of how 'static' works in
such cases has not changed since its original introduction in C99
up to the present.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-12 17:08 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vvt2tg$14otk$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393329 |
On 11/05/2025 23:43, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 5/11/25 06:02, David Brown wrote:
>> On 11/05/2025 10:21, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 May 2025 14:29:50 -0700
>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> gabbled:
> ...
>>>> The use I'm talking about here may be illustrated as follows:
>>>>
>>>> double
>>>> average( double values[ static 10 ] ){
>>>> double total = 0;
>>>> for( int i = 0; i < 10; i++ ){
>>>> total += values[i];
>>>> }
>>>> return total / 10;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> What word would you suggest to be used in place of 'static'
>>>> there?
>>>
>>> If I knew what the hell it was supposed to do I'd tell you.
>>>
>>
>> Using "static" inside array parameters is, IME, extremely rare. It was
>> added in C99, and tells the compiler that whenever "average" is called,
>> the "values" parameter points to an array of at least 10 doubles. It
>
> More precisely, it makes it undefined behavior for values to point to an
> array of less than 10 doubles.
>
The wording of the C standard (C11, as that's what I have open at the
moment) is :
"""
If the keyword static also appears within the [ and ] of the array type
derivation, then for each call to the function, the value of the
corresponding actual argument shall provide access to the first element
of an array with at least as many elements as specified by the size
expression.
"""
I think my wording is at least as "precise" as yours. The potential UB
here comes from violating the "shall" requirement.
>> does not affect the signature of the function or compatibility with any
>> other declarations, and is AFAIK rarely checked by compilers.
>
> I'd have preferred it if violating that requirement was a constraint
> violation, but it can't be, because there are many cases where a
> compiler cannot be sure how long the array is that a pointer points at.
Indeed. I am also a big fan, in general, of making mistakes in code
into compiler errors when possible - I'd rather the compiler found my
bugs than leave it to run-time testing!
> However, the fact that the behavior is undefined justifies a compiler
> reacting to the case when it can be sure that the requirement will be
> violated.
Unfortunately, that is not quite true. A C programmer is free to write
whatever nonsense and run-time UB they like, as long as that UB is not
actually "executed". So a compiler, if it aims to be conforming and to
accept code with well-defined behaviour, has to be sure that the bad
code in question would inevitably be executed before it is justified in
rejecting the code with an error.
(When the user has asked for non-conforming behaviour, or additional
analysis and warnings, then of course the compiler can complain when it
sees a potential error. Such warnings are almost always a good idea.)
> That's the main reason I like this feature, and dislike
> compilers that fail to take advantage of that opportunity. I never
> considered it to be about efficiency, though there are cases where it
> can result in more efficient code.
>
The C99 rational says it was added for efficiency reasons. But often
efficiency and static error analysis go together - the more information
the compiler has, the better it is at both tasks. And I agree with your
attitude of emphasising the static error analysis as being more
important than the efficiency considerations in most cases.
>> In an example like the one above, it is completely useless for
>> compilation - it tells the compiler nothing that it does not already
>> know. An optimising compiler will see that you are accessing values[0]
>> to values[9], and if it can get better results through vectorising,
>> prefetching, etc., then it will do so. (You can argue that the "static
>> 10" is still useful as an indicator to human readers, but I am not
>> convinced of that.)
>
> It's main potential usefulness is not in the definition of the function,
> but in calls to the function. If the calls occur in a different
> translation unit from the definition, the compiler does not have the
> needed information.
That is the case for its potential usefulness in static error checking,
but not the case for its potential usefulness in optimisation.
I am not convinced that it is actually useful as an error checking
mechanism in many situations. In a lot of code, you simply don't have a
compile-time checkable array sizes - you have a pointer, and a run-time
variable for the size. When you are calling your function with a
"static" array size, the compiler does not have any way to check your
pointer for correctness.
This is why some compilers and other verification tools have extensions
that can do more than "static" array parameters can - gcc's "access"
attribute and "object size" builtins are examples.
Still, even if it only helps occasionally, that's better than no help at
all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-12 13:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <8734d936p5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #393352 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]
> I am not convinced that it is actually useful as an error checking
> mechanism in many situations. In a lot of code, you simply don't have
> a compile-time checkable array sizes - you have a pointer, and a
> run-time variable for the size. When you are calling your function
> with a "static" array size, the compiler does not have any way to
> check your pointer for correctness.
[...]
Using [static N] in an array parameter declaration also requires the
caller to pass a non-NULL pointer. If I want to tell the compiler
that an argument must not be a NULL pointer, I can write:
void func(int arg[static 1]);
func(NULL) then has undefined behavior, and a compiler is likely
to warn about it. (Of course some UB will be missed if the compiler
can't detect it.)
--
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 | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-13 12:41 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vvv7ki$1onda$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393361 |
On 12/05/2025 22:38, Keith Thompson wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > [...] >> I am not convinced that it is actually useful as an error checking >> mechanism in many situations. In a lot of code, you simply don't have >> a compile-time checkable array sizes - you have a pointer, and a >> run-time variable for the size. When you are calling your function >> with a "static" array size, the compiler does not have any way to >> check your pointer for correctness. > [...] > > Using [static N] in an array parameter declaration also requires the > caller to pass a non-NULL pointer. If I want to tell the compiler > that an argument must not be a NULL pointer, I can write: > > void func(int arg[static 1]); > > func(NULL) then has undefined behavior, and a compiler is likely > to warn about it. (Of course some UB will be missed if the compiler > can't detect it.) > Certainly compilers are more likely to be able to differentiate between null values and non-null values, than between pointers to different lengths of data. So yes, this can be a useful check. For my own use, I dislike this syntax - if I want a pointer to an int, I prefer to give the parameter the form pointer to an int. The array form might mean the same thing to the compiler, but it does not give the same clarity to the human programmer. And if I want extra checking on this kind of thing, I use gcc attributes. (Of course not all programmers can do that, or want to do that, in their code.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-13 23:16 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <1000cs3$2234m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393352 |
On 12.05.2025 17:08, David Brown wrote: > On 11/05/2025 23:43, James Kuyper wrote: [...] >> >> More precisely, it makes it undefined behavior for values to point to an >> array of less than 10 doubles. > > The wording of the C standard (C11, as that's what I have open at the > moment) is : > > """ > If the keyword static also appears within the [ and ] of the array type > derivation, then for each call to the function, the value of the > corresponding actual argument shall provide access to the first element > of an array with at least as many elements as specified by the size > expression. > """ Oh! - This is somewhat surprising to me. - When I first read about the "arr[static N]" I assumed that it would be possible to pass any sub-array, say "&arr[8]" (or "arr+8") as long as it's large enough to still have N elements from the starting point, but the quote says explicitly "access to the _first_ element of an array" (which I'd interpret as "&arr[0]" (or "arr"). - Unless I misinterpreted that; what would be the reason for that? Janis > [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-13 14:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <87sel8nqid.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #393384 |
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
> On 12.05.2025 17:08, David Brown wrote:
>> On 11/05/2025 23:43, James Kuyper wrote:
> [...]
>>> More precisely, it makes it undefined behavior for values to point to an
>>> array of less than 10 doubles.
>>
>> The wording of the C standard (C11, as that's what I have open at the
>> moment) is :
>>
>> """
>> If the keyword static also appears within the [ and ] of the array type
>> derivation, then for each call to the function, the value of the
>> corresponding actual argument shall provide access to the first element
>> of an array with at least as many elements as specified by the size
>> expression.
>> """
>
> Oh! - This is somewhat surprising to me. - When I first read about
> the "arr[static N]" I assumed that it would be possible to pass any
> sub-array, say "&arr[8]" (or "arr+8") as long as it's large enough
> to still have N elements from the starting point, but the quote says
> explicitly "access to the _first_ element of an array" (which I'd
> interpret as "&arr[0]" (or "arr"). - Unless I misinterpreted that;
> what would be the reason for that?
My personal interpretation is that this:
void func(int arr[static 5]) {
}
int main(void) {
int arr[10];
func(arr+5); // OK
// func(arr+6); // UB
}
is valid, because, for example, the last 5 elements of a 10-element
array object can be treated as a 5-element array object. gcc seems
to agree, based on the fact that it warns about func(arr+6) but
not about func(arr+5).
This is a fundamental part of my mental model of C, but in a few
minutes of searching I wasn't able to find explicit wording in the
standard that supports it.
--
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 | 2025-05-13 15:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <86msbgw49b.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #393385 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 12.05.2025 17:08, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/05/2025 23:43, James Kuyper wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> More precisely, it makes it undefined behavior for values to point to an
>>>> array of less than 10 doubles.
>>>
>>> The wording of the C standard (C11, as that's what I have open at the
>>> moment) is :
>>>
>>> """
>>> If the keyword static also appears within the [ and ] of the array type
>>> derivation, then for each call to the function, the value of the
>>> corresponding actual argument shall provide access to the first element
>>> of an array with at least as many elements as specified by the size
>>> expression.
>>> """
>>
>> Oh! - This is somewhat surprising to me. - When I first read about
>> the "arr[static N]" I assumed that it would be possible to pass any
>> sub-array, say "&arr[8]" (or "arr+8") as long as it's large enough
>> to still have N elements from the starting point, but the quote says
>> explicitly "access to the _first_ element of an array" (which I'd
>> interpret as "&arr[0]" (or "arr"). - Unless I misinterpreted that;
>> what would be the reason for that?
>
> My personal interpretation is that this:
>
> void func(int arr[static 5]) {
> }
>
> int main(void) {
> int arr[10];
> func(arr+5); // OK
> // func(arr+6); // UB
> }
>
> is valid, because, for example, the last 5 elements of a 10-element
> array object can be treated as a 5-element array object. gcc seems
> to agree, based on the fact that it warns about func(arr+6) but
> not about func(arr+5).
>
> This is a fundamental part of my mental model of C, but in a few
> minutes of searching I wasn't able to find explicit wording in the
> standard that supports it.
In N1570, 6.7.6.3 p7.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-13 15:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <875xi4cevz.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #393386 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
>> My personal interpretation is that this:
>>
>> void func(int arr[static 5]) {
>> }
>>
>> int main(void) {
>> int arr[10];
>> func(arr+5); // OK
>> // func(arr+6); // UB
>> }
>>
>> is valid, because, for example, the last 5 elements of a 10-element
>> array object can be treated as a 5-element array object. gcc seems
>> to agree, based on the fact that it warns about func(arr+6) but
>> not about func(arr+5).
>>
>> This is a fundamental part of my mental model of C, but in a few
>> minutes of searching I wasn't able to find explicit wording in the
>> standard that supports it.
>
> In N1570, 6.7.6.3 p7.
Did you mean to imply that that paragraph supports (or refutes) my
statement? I don't see how it does either.
"""
A declaration of a parameter as ‘‘array of _type_’’ shall
be adjusted to ‘‘qualified pointer to _type_’’, where the
type qualifiers (if any) are those specified within the [ and ]
of the array type derivation. If the keyword static also appears
within the [ and ] of the array type derivation, then for each call
to the function, the value of the corresponding actual argument
shall provide access to the first element of an array with at least
as many elements as specified by the size expression.
"""
The question is whether, for example, the last 5 elements of a
10-element array object can be treated as a 5-element array object.
If someone can cite wording in the standard that answers that
question, I'd appreciate it. (I'll be happier if the answer is yes.)
Looking into this a bit more, I realize that the question doesn't
matter if there's no "static" keyword between the [ and ]. In that
case, the parameter is of pointer type, and the description of
pointer arithmetic (N1570 6.5.6p8) explicitly allows the pointer
to point to the i-th element of an array object. The wording for
[static N] is the only place I've seen (so far) that specifically
refers to the *first* element of an array object, raising the
question of whether a subobject of an array object is itself an
array object. This might just be some slightly sloppy wording that
was introduced in C99 and never corrected.
For example, given this code:
```
void without_static(int arr[]) {
(void)arr[4];
}
void with_static(int arr[static 5]) {
(void)arr[4];
}
int main(void) {
int arr[10] = { 0 };
without_static(arr+5);
with_static(arr+5);
}
```
there's no problem with the call `without_static(arr+5)`, but the
call `with_static(arr+5)` has defined behavior if and only if the
last 5 elements of a 10-element array object can be treated as a
5-element array object.
--
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 | 2025-05-13 18:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <86ecwsvunb.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #393387 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>
>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>>> My personal interpretation is that this:
>>>
>>> void func(int arr[static 5]) {
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main(void) {
>>> int arr[10];
>>> func(arr+5); // OK
>>> // func(arr+6); // UB
>>> }
>>>
>>> is valid, because, for example, the last 5 elements of a 10-element
>>> array object can be treated as a 5-element array object. gcc seems
>>> to agree, based on the fact that it warns about func(arr+6) but
>>> not about func(arr+5).
>>>
>>> This is a fundamental part of my mental model of C, but in a few
>>> minutes of searching I wasn't able to find explicit wording in the
>>> standard that supports it.
>>
>> In N1570, 6.7.6.3 p7.
>
> Did you mean to imply that that paragraph supports (or refutes) my
> statement? [...]
No. I posted the reference to say that the cited paragraph supports
the conclusion that 'func(arr+6)' is undefined behavior.
> """
> A declaration of a parameter as ??array of _type_?? shall
> be adjusted to ??qualified pointer to _type_??, where the
> type qualifiers (if any) are those specified within the [ and ]
> of the array type derivation. If the keyword static also appears
> within the [ and ] of the array type derivation, then for each call
> to the function, the value of the corresponding actual argument
> shall provide access to the first element of an array with at least
> as many elements as specified by the size expression.
> """
>
> The question is whether, for example, the last 5 elements of a
> 10-element array object can be treated as a 5-element array object.
> If someone can cite wording in the standard that answers that
> question, I'd appreciate it. (I'll be happier if the answer is yes.)
To me it seems obvious that 6.7.6.3 p7 is meant to cover the
case of 'func(arr+6)' as being undefined behavior.
Note that 6.7.6.3 p7 doesn't say "array object", it says just
"array". I believe the choice of wording is neither an accident nor
an oversight.
> Looking into this a bit more, I realize that the question doesn't
> matter if there's no "static" keyword between the [ and ]. In that
> case, the parameter is of pointer type, and the description of
> pointer arithmetic (N1570 6.5.6p8) explicitly allows the pointer
> to point to the i-th element of an array object. The wording for
> [static N] is the only place I've seen (so far) that specifically
> refers to the *first* element of an array object, raising the
> question of whether a subobject of an array object is itself an
> array object.
Again, not an array object, just an array.
> This might just be some slightly sloppy wording that was
> introduced in C99 and never corrected.
I draw the opposite conclusion. The wording of 6.7.6.3 p7 was
carefully chosen so that it would cover cases like 'func(arr+6)'.
> For example, given this code:
>
> ```
> void without_static(int arr[]) {
> (void)arr[4];
> }
>
> void with_static(int arr[static 5]) {
> (void)arr[4];
> }
>
> int main(void) {
> int arr[10] = { 0 };
> without_static(arr+5);
> with_static(arr+5);
> }
> ```
>
> there's no problem with the call `without_static(arr+5)`, but the
> call `with_static(arr+5)` has defined behavior if and only if the
> last 5 elements of a 10-element array object can be treated as a
> 5-element array object.
That isn't what the C standard says. It just says "array", not
"array object".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-13 19:37 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <87sel7c3y6.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #393391 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>
>>>> My personal interpretation is that this:
>>>>
>>>> void func(int arr[static 5]) {
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int main(void) {
>>>> int arr[10];
>>>> func(arr+5); // OK
>>>> // func(arr+6); // UB
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> is valid, because, for example, the last 5 elements of a 10-element
>>>> array object can be treated as a 5-element array object. gcc seems
>>>> to agree, based on the fact that it warns about func(arr+6) but
>>>> not about func(arr+5).
>>>>
>>>> This is a fundamental part of my mental model of C, but in a few
>>>> minutes of searching I wasn't able to find explicit wording in the
>>>> standard that supports it.
>>>
>>> In N1570, 6.7.6.3 p7.
>>
>> Did you mean to imply that that paragraph supports (or refutes) my
>> statement? [...]
>
> No. I posted the reference to say that the cited paragraph supports
> the conclusion that 'func(arr+6)' is undefined behavior.
I wish you had said so in the first place. Of course func(arr+6) has
undefined behavior. Did anyone in this thread say or imply otherwise?
>> """
>> A declaration of a parameter as ??array of _type_?? shall
>> be adjusted to ??qualified pointer to _type_??, where the
>> type qualifiers (if any) are those specified within the [ and ]
>> of the array type derivation. If the keyword static also appears
>> within the [ and ] of the array type derivation, then for each call
>> to the function, the value of the corresponding actual argument
>> shall provide access to the first element of an array with at least
>> as many elements as specified by the size expression.
>> """
>>
>> The question is whether, for example, the last 5 elements of a
>> 10-element array object can be treated as a 5-element array object.
>> If someone can cite wording in the standard that answers that
>> question, I'd appreciate it. (I'll be happier if the answer is yes.)
>
> To me it seems obvious that 6.7.6.3 p7 is meant to cover the
> case of 'func(arr+6)' as being undefined behavior.
But that's not the question I was addressing. My question is whether
func(arr+5) has defined behavior, based on whether or not a+5 points to
the *first element* of an array.
> Note that 6.7.6.3 p7 doesn't say "array object", it says just
> "array". I believe the choice of wording is neither an accident nor
> an oversight.
Then please explain what you see as the difference. Wording in the
standard to support the distinction would be welcome.
Given `int arr[10];`, do the last 5 elements of arr constitute an
"array"? Do they constitute an "array object"? And the same
questions for arr as a whole.
>> Looking into this a bit more, I realize that the question doesn't
>> matter if there's no "static" keyword between the [ and ]. In that
>> case, the parameter is of pointer type, and the description of
>> pointer arithmetic (N1570 6.5.6p8) explicitly allows the pointer
>> to point to the i-th element of an array object. The wording for
>> [static N] is the only place I've seen (so far) that specifically
>> refers to the *first* element of an array object, raising the
>> question of whether a subobject of an array object is itself an
>> array object.
>
> Again, not an array object, just an array.
>
>> This might just be some slightly sloppy wording that was
>> introduced in C99 and never corrected.
>
> I draw the opposite conclusion. The wording of 6.7.6.3 p7 was
> carefully chosen so that it would cover cases like 'func(arr+6)'.
But func(arr+5) is the case I was wondering about. (That's why I
commented out the func(arr+6) call.)
[snip]
--
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 | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-13 23:54 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <100145s$2a235$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393394 |
On 5/13/25 22:37, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> My personal interpretation is that this:
>>>>>
>>>>> void func(int arr[static 5]) {
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main(void) {
>>>>> int arr[10];
>>>>> func(arr+5); // OK
>>>>> // func(arr+6); // UB
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> is valid, because, for example, the last 5 elements of a 10-element
>>>>> array object can be treated as a 5-element array object. gcc seems
>>>>> to agree, based on the fact that it warns about func(arr+6) but
>>>>> not about func(arr+5).
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a fundamental part of my mental model of C, but in a few
>>>>> minutes of searching I wasn't able to find explicit wording in the
>>>>> standard that supports it.
>>>>
>>>> In N1570, 6.7.6.3 p7.
>>>
>>> Did you mean to imply that that paragraph supports (or refutes) my
>>> statement? [...]
>>
>> No. I posted the reference to say that the cited paragraph supports
>> the conclusion that 'func(arr+6)' is undefined behavior.
...
>> To me it seems obvious that 6.7.6.3 p7 is meant to cover the
>> case of 'func(arr+6)' as being undefined behavior.
>
> But that's not the question I was addressing. My question is whether
> func(arr+5) has defined behavior, based on whether or not a+5 points to
> the *first element* of an array.
Tim - you very commonly post messages leaving out lots of relevant
information, seemingly expecting people to figure out the details that
you don't bother to provide. This can be a valid teaching technique, but
using that technique relies on the assumption that what you've left out
can be determined by careful examination of what you put in. However,
Keith had no reasonable way of guessing what you had left out, because
he did not anticipate that you would address the wrong question. As a
general rule, if there's any possibility that you've made a mistake like
you did in this case, leaving out too many details as "an exorcise for
the student" runs the risk of not not providing enough information for
others to identify and correct the mistake.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-13 21:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <861psrx1qt.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #393396 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> On 5/13/25 22:37, Keith Thompson wrote:
>
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>
>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>> My personal interpretation is that this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void func(int arr[static 5]) {
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main(void) {
>>>>>> int arr[10];
>>>>>> func(arr+5); // OK
>>>>>> // func(arr+6); // UB
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is valid, because, for example, the last 5 elements of a 10-element
>>>>>> array object can be treated as a 5-element array object. gcc seems
>>>>>> to agree, based on the fact that it warns about func(arr+6) but
>>>>>> not about func(arr+5).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a fundamental part of my mental model of C, but in a few
>>>>>> minutes of searching I wasn't able to find explicit wording in the
>>>>>> standard that supports it.
>>>>>
>>>>> In N1570, 6.7.6.3 p7.
>>>>
>>>> Did you mean to imply that that paragraph supports (or refutes) my
>>>> statement? [...]
>>>
>>> No. I posted the reference to say that the cited paragraph supports
>>> the conclusion that 'func(arr+6)' is undefined behavior.
>
> ...
>
>>> To me it seems obvious that 6.7.6.3 p7 is meant to cover the
>>> case of 'func(arr+6)' as being undefined behavior.
>>
>> But that's not the question I was addressing. My question is whether
>> func(arr+5) has defined behavior, based on whether or not a+5 points to
>> the *first element* of an array.
>
> Tim - [...]
I don't know why you expect me to read postings meant for me but
posted as a reply to another poster. Sometimes I do, sometimes
I don't. You may take the correlation as being determined by
quantum mechanical uncertainty.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-13 21:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <865xi3x22i.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #393394 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>
>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> My personal interpretation is that this:
>>>>>
>>>>> void func(int arr[static 5]) {
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main(void) {
>>>>> int arr[10];
>>>>> func(arr+5); // OK
>>>>> // func(arr+6); // UB
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> is valid, because, for example, the last 5 elements of a 10-element
>>>>> array object can be treated as a 5-element array object. gcc seems
>>>>> to agree, based on the fact that it warns about func(arr+6) but
>>>>> not about func(arr+5).
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a fundamental part of my mental model of C, but in a few
>>>>> minutes of searching I wasn't able to find explicit wording in the
>>>>> standard that supports it.
>>>>
>>>> In N1570, 6.7.6.3 p7.
>>>
>>> Did you mean to imply that that paragraph supports (or refutes) my
>>> statement? [...]
>>
>> No. I posted the reference to say that the cited paragraph supports
>> the conclusion that 'func(arr+6)' is undefined behavior.
>
> I wish you had said so in the first place. Of course func(arr+6) has
> undefined behavior. Did anyone in this thread say or imply otherwise?
In my view the same reasoning about the meaning applies to both
cases, so there is no reason to talk about them separately.
>>> """
>>> A declaration of a parameter as ??array of _type_?? shall
>>> be adjusted to ??qualified pointer to _type_??, where the
>>> type qualifiers (if any) are those specified within the [ and ]
>>> of the array type derivation. If the keyword static also appears
>>> within the [ and ] of the array type derivation, then for each call
>>> to the function, the value of the corresponding actual argument
>>> shall provide access to the first element of an array with at least
>>> as many elements as specified by the size expression.
>>> """
>>>
>>> The question is whether, for example, the last 5 elements of a
>>> 10-element array object can be treated as a 5-element array object.
>>> If someone can cite wording in the standard that answers that
>>> question, I'd appreciate it. (I'll be happier if the answer is yes.)
>>
>> To me it seems obvious that 6.7.6.3 p7 is meant to cover the
>> case of 'func(arr+6)' as being undefined behavior.
>
> But that's not the question I was addressing. My question is whether
> func(arr+5) has defined behavior, based on whether or not a+5 points to
> the *first element* of an array.
To me it seems obvious that 6.7.6.3 p7 is meant to cover the
case of 'func(arr+5)' as satisfying the "shall" requirement,
for the same reasons that it is meant to cover the case of
'func(arr+6)' as being undefined behavior.
>> Note that 6.7.6.3 p7 doesn't say "array object", it says just
>> "array". I believe the choice of wording is neither an accident nor
>> an oversight.
>
> Then please explain what you see as the difference. Wording in the
> standard to support the distinction would be welcome.
>
> Given `int arr[10];`, do the last 5 elements of arr constitute an
> "array"? Do they constitute an "array object"? And the same
> questions for arr as a whole.
The meanings follow from a plain understanding of the English
language.
Consider the following example:
typedef struct { int s; float f; } T;
extern void foo( unsigned char blah[ static sizeof(T)-1 ] );
void
bas( T *it ){
foo( (unsigned char *)it + 1 );
}
There is no array object. But surely there is an array (or at
least an array is indicatated, and an array is present if 'it' is
a valid pointer). This example satisfies the "shall" requirement
in 6.7.6.3 p7, despite there being no array object in sight.
>>> Looking into this a bit more, I realize that the question doesn't
>>> matter if there's no "static" keyword between the [ and ]. In that
>>> case, the parameter is of pointer type, and the description of
>>> pointer arithmetic (N1570 6.5.6p8) explicitly allows the pointer
>>> to point to the i-th element of an array object. The wording for
>>> [static N] is the only place I've seen (so far) that specifically
>>> refers to the *first* element of an array object, raising the
>>> question of whether a subobject of an array object is itself an
>>> array object.
>>
>> Again, not an array object, just an array.
>>
>>> This might just be some slightly sloppy wording that was
>>> introduced in C99 and never corrected.
>>
>> I draw the opposite conclusion. The wording of 6.7.6.3 p7 was
>> carefully chosen so that it would cover cases like 'func(arr+6)'.
>
> But func(arr+5) is the case I was wondering about. (That's why I
> commented out the func(arr+6) call.)
The wording of 6.7.6.3 p7 was carefully chosen so that it would allow
cases like 'func(arr+5)', for the same reasons that it would deem
'func(arr+6)' as being undefined behavior.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-13 22:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <87h61nbvlo.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #393397 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>> My personal interpretation is that this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void func(int arr[static 5]) {
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main(void) {
>>>>>> int arr[10];
>>>>>> func(arr+5); // OK
>>>>>> // func(arr+6); // UB
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is valid, because, for example, the last 5 elements of a 10-element
>>>>>> array object can be treated as a 5-element array object. gcc seems
>>>>>> to agree, based on the fact that it warns about func(arr+6) but
>>>>>> not about func(arr+5).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a fundamental part of my mental model of C, but in a few
>>>>>> minutes of searching I wasn't able to find explicit wording in the
>>>>>> standard that supports it.
>>>>>
>>>>> In N1570, 6.7.6.3 p7.
>>>>
>>>> Did you mean to imply that that paragraph supports (or refutes) my
>>>> statement? [...]
>>>
>>> No. I posted the reference to say that the cited paragraph supports
>>> the conclusion that 'func(arr+6)' is undefined behavior.
>>
>> I wish you had said so in the first place. Of course func(arr+6) has
>> undefined behavior. Did anyone in this thread say or imply otherwise?
>
> In my view the same reasoning about the meaning applies to both
> cases, so there is no reason to talk about them separately.
Again, of course the behavior of func(arr+6) is undefined. The behavior
of func(arr+5) is less clear *to me*.
>>>> """
>>>> A declaration of a parameter as ??array of _type_?? shall
>>>> be adjusted to ??qualified pointer to _type_??, where the
>>>> type qualifiers (if any) are those specified within the [ and ]
>>>> of the array type derivation. If the keyword static also appears
>>>> within the [ and ] of the array type derivation, then for each call
>>>> to the function, the value of the corresponding actual argument
>>>> shall provide access to the first element of an array with at least
>>>> as many elements as specified by the size expression.
>>>> """
>>>>
>>>> The question is whether, for example, the last 5 elements of a
>>>> 10-element array object can be treated as a 5-element array object.
>>>> If someone can cite wording in the standard that answers that
>>>> question, I'd appreciate it. (I'll be happier if the answer is yes.)
>>>
>>> To me it seems obvious that 6.7.6.3 p7 is meant to cover the
>>> case of 'func(arr+6)' as being undefined behavior.
>>
>> But that's not the question I was addressing. My question is whether
>> func(arr+5) has defined behavior, based on whether or not a+5 points to
>> the *first element* of an array.
>
> To me it seems obvious that 6.7.6.3 p7 is meant to cover the
> case of 'func(arr+5)' as satisfying the "shall" requirement,
> for the same reasons that it is meant to cover the case of
> 'func(arr+6)' as being undefined behavior.
It does so only if the argument arr+5 provides access to "the first
element of an array". You seem to think that it's obvious that it does
so, based on the disinction you make between "array" and "array object".
>>> Note that 6.7.6.3 p7 doesn't say "array object", it says just
>>> "array". I believe the choice of wording is neither an accident nor
>>> an oversight.
>>
>> Then please explain what you see as the difference. Wording in the
>> standard to support the distinction would be welcome.
>>
>> Given `int arr[10];`, do the last 5 elements of arr constitute an
>> "array"? Do they constitute an "array object"? And the same
>> questions for arr as a whole.
I note that you haven't answered the above questions. They were not
rhetorical. I asked them because I thought that answers to those
specific questions would help me to understand the distinction that you
make between "array" and "array object".
> The meanings follow from a plain understanding of the English
> language.
I disagree. Perhaps my understanding of certain combinations of English
words differs from yours.
> Consider the following example:
>
> typedef struct { int s; float f; } T;
>
> extern void foo( unsigned char blah[ static sizeof(T)-1 ] );
>
> void
> bas( T *it ){
> foo( (unsigned char *)it + 1 );
> }
>
> There is no array object. But surely there is an array (or at
> least an array is indicatated, and an array is present if 'it' is
> a valid pointer). This example satisfies the "shall" requirement
> in 6.7.6.3 p7, despite there being no array object in sight.
Is there no "region of data storage in the execution environment, the
contents of which can represent values"? Cannot that region represent
a value of type unsigned char[sizeof(T)-1]? Is a region of data
storage that can represent values of array type not an array object?
Again, none of these questions are rhetorical.
Can you define, preferably in something approaching standardese, what
you mean by "array" and by "array object", and in particular how they
differ?
I believe that, in my example above, arr+5 *does* "provide access
to an array" with at least 5 elements. (I also believe that that
"array" is an "array object".) My difficulty is in demonstrating
this based on the normative wording in the standard. *Maybe*
if you could explain the distinction you make between "array" and
"array object" it would help.
[...]
--
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]
Page 13 of 35 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 35 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web