Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #156943 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-12-05 08:25 -0800 |
| Last post | 2021-01-06 23:07 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 399 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-05 08:25 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2020-12-05 17:33 +0100
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-06 11:58 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-30 09:40 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-12-30 18:20 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-31 01:04 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2021-01-02 22:05 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-01-02 14:48 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-02 19:17 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-02 19:04 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2020-12-30 21:44 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2020-12-31 02:54 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-03 09:49 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2021-01-04 00:15 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-01-03 21:57 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-01-03 23:00 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-01-04 00:00 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-04 20:04 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-01-05 07:15 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-07 22:30 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-01-04 18:42 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-01-04 21:23 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-01-04 23:41 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2020-12-05 16:39 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2020-12-05 16:58 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2020-12-05 17:08 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-12-05 17:11 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2020-12-05 17:24 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-12-05 17:52 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2020-12-05 18:30 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-12-05 19:56 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-12-06 14:51 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-05 17:49 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2020-12-05 18:34 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-12-05 19:40 +0100
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2020-12-05 18:47 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2020-12-05 23:19 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-12-05 23:56 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2020-12-08 02:26 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-08 16:04 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-08 23:39 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-12 23:34 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-12 19:28 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge kegs@provalid.com (Kent Dickey) - 2020-12-29 10:34 -0600
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-29 20:05 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-06 06:03 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge dfs <nospam@dfs.com> - 2020-12-05 13:58 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-12-05 21:37 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-06 06:13 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-12-06 18:00 +0100
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-06 12:31 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-06 06:26 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-12-05 23:32 +0100
Re: Programming exercise/challenge jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-12-06 17:18 +0100
Re: Programming exercise/challenge jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-12-06 17:51 +0100
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-12-06 22:27 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-12-07 09:37 +0100
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-12-07 07:36 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-08 22:49 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-06 17:51 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge dfs <nospam@dfs.com> - 2020-12-06 13:03 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-06 23:53 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-12-06 19:53 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-06 23:38 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-12-07 00:17 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-07 02:09 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-07 01:03 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-07 12:05 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-12-07 12:25 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-07 13:33 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-12-07 14:18 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-12-07 14:31 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-12-07 12:58 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-08 23:03 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-12-07 07:12 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-07 21:55 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-08 22:59 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-08 22:55 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-12-09 07:45 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-24 11:26 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-12-24 12:24 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-12-24 17:19 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-27 05:16 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-27 04:17 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-12-27 08:27 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-29 19:18 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-12-07 05:15 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-07 13:42 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-08 22:53 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-10 01:49 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-10 22:35 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-10 21:17 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-12 21:44 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-12 19:46 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-13 12:21 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-24 11:35 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2020-12-31 00:46 +0100
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2020-12-31 00:52 +0100
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-31 00:34 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-01 08:23 +0100
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-01 10:09 +0100
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-01 11:38 +0100
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-01 08:24 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-12-07 07:03 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-08 02:16 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-09 02:39 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-08 23:18 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-08 23:17 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-08 00:27 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-08 23:20 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2020-12-07 13:44 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2020-12-07 14:01 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-07 22:16 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2020-12-07 15:10 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-08 01:07 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-12-08 00:34 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2020-12-08 18:17 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2020-12-09 00:56 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-09 02:30 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2020-12-09 15:14 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2020-12-09 15:44 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-12 23:56 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2020-12-12 13:29 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-13 00:46 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2020-12-12 13:59 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-13 14:17 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2020-12-13 12:58 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-13 20:57 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2020-12-14 20:44 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2020-12-23 11:15 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-23 23:45 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2020-12-23 21:36 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2020-12-24 09:11 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-24 15:30 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2020-12-24 23:18 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2020-12-24 23:56 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2020-12-28 12:01 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-29 19:31 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-24 14:47 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-08 01:59 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-08 23:26 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-12-07 19:02 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-08 01:15 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-12-07 20:38 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-08 02:19 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-12-08 11:44 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-12-08 07:32 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-12-08 14:40 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-12-08 06:52 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-12-08 17:31 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2020-12-08 20:16 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-12-08 20:48 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-12-08 15:34 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-09 02:54 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-09 12:33 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-09 12:43 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-12-09 01:52 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-13 00:28 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-12 21:40 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-12-12 13:48 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-12-09 01:46 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-08 23:29 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-12-08 10:45 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-08 17:16 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-12-08 06:39 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-07 17:48 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-12-07 21:03 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-09 03:02 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-12-09 08:02 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-09 16:49 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-12-09 13:33 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-09 19:57 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-12-10 01:45 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2020-12-10 02:15 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-24 11:24 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-12-09 21:57 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2020-12-10 03:32 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-12-10 08:19 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-24 11:04 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2020-12-24 19:34 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-08 02:22 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-09 03:04 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-09 11:59 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-12-09 08:11 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-10 00:02 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-10 15:12 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-10 10:36 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-10 22:11 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2020-12-10 23:34 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-12-10 20:11 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-10 21:06 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-09 03:03 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-12-08 21:21 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-09 12:50 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-12-09 08:16 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-08 23:32 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-12-09 12:21 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-01-02 19:15 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-07 01:54 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-01-22 22:36 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-01-22 23:07 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 20:27 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-01-23 13:05 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-23 07:45 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-01-23 16:49 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-23 11:22 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-01-23 16:53 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-23 09:55 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-23 21:35 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-01-24 18:17 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-27 07:57 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-23 11:28 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge "jfbod...@gmail.com" <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2020-12-08 11:30 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2020-12-08 20:31 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-12-08 22:17 +0100
Re: Programming exercise/challenge jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-12-08 22:15 +0100
Re: Programming exercise/challenge "jfbod...@gmail.com" <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2020-12-08 13:28 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge "jfbod...@gmail.com" <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2020-12-09 12:05 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-13 00:04 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2020-12-08 21:38 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-09 03:25 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-09 01:00 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-09 03:09 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-13 00:35 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-12 22:57 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-12 23:43 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-12 19:47 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-12 23:27 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-12-13 14:44 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-24 11:47 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-09 03:36 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-09 14:51 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-09 11:35 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-10 02:33 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-10 00:05 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-10 14:59 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-10 20:32 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-12 23:45 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-12 19:24 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-13 00:17 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-12 19:23 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2020-12-09 19:31 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-09 12:01 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-09 12:25 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge kegs@provalid.com (Kent Dickey) - 2020-12-23 01:00 -0600
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-24 14:34 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge kegs@provalid.com (Kent Dickey) - 2020-12-26 23:03 -0600
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-27 06:29 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge kegs@provalid.com (Kent Dickey) - 2020-12-28 11:52 -0600
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-29 00:38 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-28 15:29 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge kegs@provalid.com (Kent Dickey) - 2020-12-28 17:12 -0600
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-28 23:54 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge kegs@provalid.com (Kent Dickey) - 2020-12-29 10:26 -0600
Re: Programming exercise/challenge kegs@provalid.com (Kent Dickey) - 2020-12-29 10:37 -0600
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-29 19:59 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-12-30 09:17 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-12-31 16:54 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge kegs@provalid.com (Kent Dickey) - 2020-12-31 09:16 -0600
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-12-31 15:56 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-07 02:41 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-12-31 13:01 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-12-31 14:15 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-01 08:03 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-01 07:42 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2021-01-02 21:59 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-01-02 14:52 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-01-02 12:30 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-02 18:17 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-01-02 19:22 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-01-02 17:48 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-02 22:35 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-02 18:02 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-01-03 00:42 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-04 20:12 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-04 07:04 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-04 20:22 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-05 04:24 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-05 06:22 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-05 08:55 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2021-01-05 20:22 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2021-01-05 20:27 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-05 14:20 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-01-05 17:23 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-05 10:18 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-01-05 18:57 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-05 12:58 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-01-05 17:31 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-05 17:50 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-05 19:33 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-01-05 23:02 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-05 21:00 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-01-06 07:42 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-06 08:55 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-01-06 13:29 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-06 14:09 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-06 22:11 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-07 03:10 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-01-07 06:40 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-09 06:27 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-10 04:32 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-11 06:58 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-11 14:40 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-15 09:46 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-17 04:13 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-01-17 14:18 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-01-17 18:02 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-01-17 15:12 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-01-17 21:39 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-20 10:57 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 11:37 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-22 00:30 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 09:09 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-22 13:47 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-01-22 19:00 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-01-22 19:42 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-01-22 21:16 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-22 16:41 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-23 17:46 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-23 09:51 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-01-23 18:38 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-23 04:52 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-01-23 15:45 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-23 09:04 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-01-23 23:10 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-23 15:39 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-01-23 15:59 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-25 11:40 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-23 09:47 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-01-23 18:32 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-23 17:26 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-01-24 01:55 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-27 08:40 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-23 20:51 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-01-24 02:28 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-24 03:49 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2021-01-24 15:38 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-01-24 14:04 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-25 07:26 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-01-25 16:58 +0100
Re: Programming exercise/challenge luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2021-01-25 09:14 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-27 07:32 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-01-27 16:24 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-28 00:11 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2021-01-28 12:25 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-28 06:18 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2021-01-28 16:54 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-28 09:15 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2021-01-28 20:07 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-28 15:58 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2021-01-29 00:07 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-28 16:17 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2021-01-29 00:03 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-01-28 03:37 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-01-28 22:50 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2021-01-30 23:14 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-01-30 20:49 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge M Joshua Ryan <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2021-01-28 00:05 -0600
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-27 11:51 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-01-25 17:22 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-25 12:21 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-01-25 14:27 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-25 19:41 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-01-26 04:46 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-26 06:30 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-01-26 15:46 +0100
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-27 03:43 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-01-27 13:43 +0100
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2021-01-27 17:51 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-27 11:02 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-01-27 17:03 +0100
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-01-27 07:21 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-01-27 17:09 +0100
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-01-27 17:04 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-01-28 10:41 +0100
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-01-28 18:25 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-01-28 10:44 +0100
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-01-28 21:33 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-01-29 10:39 +0100
Re: Programming exercise/challenge James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-25 23:52 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-01-26 11:37 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-27 08:04 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2021-01-27 19:16 +0300
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-27 23:38 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-27 13:43 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-28 03:16 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-28 06:42 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-28 13:01 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-06 13:35 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-01-06 19:27 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-01-06 21:25 +0000
Re: Programming exercise/challenge James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-06 00:37 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-06 04:34 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-06 11:54 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-05 15:28 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-05 13:27 -0500
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-05 15:43 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-01-05 20:10 -0800
Re: Programming exercise/challenge Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-06 23:07 -0800
Page 10 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 20 Next page →
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-12-08 02:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87lfe9jauk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #157070 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: > Incidentally, the problem statement isn't something I just made up > for the newsgroup, but is a simplified version of a utility > program that is used as part of a larger toolkit. Which utility is that? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-12-09 03:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <861rfz5jgn.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #157073 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: > >> Incidentally, the problem statement isn't something I just made up >> for the newsgroup, but is a simplified version of a utility >> program that is used as part of a larger toolkit. > > Which utility is that? It's one small piece of a larger C development environment that I wrote about twenty years ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-12-09 11:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87zh2ndwbe.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #157141 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > >> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >> >>> Incidentally, the problem statement isn't something I just made up >>> for the newsgroup, but is a simplified version of a utility >>> program that is used as part of a larger toolkit. >> >> Which utility is that? > > It's one small piece of a larger C development environment that > I wrote about twenty years ago. Ah, that explains it to some extent. I was wondering if others had arrived at this exact specification. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-12-09 08:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <424AH.7673$ao6.5906@fx19.iad> |
| In reply to | #157145 |
On 12/9/20 6:59 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: > >> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >> >>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >>> >>>> Incidentally, the problem statement isn't something I just made up >>>> for the newsgroup, but is a simplified version of a utility >>>> program that is used as part of a larger toolkit. >>> >>> Which utility is that? >> >> It's one small piece of a larger C development environment that >> I wrote about twenty years ago. > > Ah, that explains it to some extent. I was wondering if others had > arrived at this exact specification. > It matches what I presumed it was.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-12-10 00:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <868sa63x78.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #157145 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: > >> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >> >>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >>> >>>> Incidentally, the problem statement isn't something I just made up >>>> for the newsgroup, but is a simplified version of a utility >>>> program that is used as part of a larger toolkit. >>> >>> Which utility is that? >> >> It's one small piece of a larger C development environment that >> I wrote about twenty years ago. > > Ah, that explains it to some extent. I was wondering if others had > arrived at this exact specification. I guess it's worth noting that how the program should behave was chosen after the fact, not before, to provide what was needed in the larger context. In any case though the credit, responsibility, and blame are all mine and mine alone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-12-10 15:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87czzhbsq0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #157181 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > >> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >> >>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >>> >>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> Incidentally, the problem statement isn't something I just made up >>>>> for the newsgroup, but is a simplified version of a utility >>>>> program that is used as part of a larger toolkit. >>>> >>>> Which utility is that? >>> >>> It's one small piece of a larger C development environment that >>> I wrote about twenty years ago. >> >> Ah, that explains it to some extent. I was wondering if others had >> arrived at this exact specification. > > I guess it's worth noting that how the program should behave was > chosen after the fact, not before, to provide what was needed in > the larger context. It would be more interesting to note why this behaviour was needed in the larger context. Is there some reason for holding back? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-12-10 10:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86sg8d33uh.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #157192 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: > >> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >> >>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >>> >>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >>>> >>>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Incidentally, the problem statement isn't something I just made up >>>>>> for the newsgroup, but is a simplified version of a utility >>>>>> program that is used as part of a larger toolkit. >>>>> >>>>> Which utility is that? >>>> >>>> It's one small piece of a larger C development environment that >>>> I wrote about twenty years ago. >>> >>> Ah, that explains it to some extent. I was wondering if others had >>> arrived at this exact specification. >> >> I guess it's worth noting that how the program should behave was >> chosen after the fact, not before, to provide what was needed in >> the larger context. > > It would be more interesting to note why this behaviour was needed in > the larger context. Is there some reason for holding back? The best I can tell you is that it must have seemed like a good idea at the time. I don't want to go back and try to reconstruct what motivated a decision made 20 years ago. I remember the choice but not what motivated it. It's possible it may have been nothing more than intellectual interest, but I can't say that for sure either. Sorry not to have a better answer for you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-12-10 22:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87k0tp9urk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #157200 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > >> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >> >>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >>> >>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Incidentally, the problem statement isn't something I just made up >>>>>>> for the newsgroup, but is a simplified version of a utility >>>>>>> program that is used as part of a larger toolkit. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which utility is that? >>>>> >>>>> It's one small piece of a larger C development environment that >>>>> I wrote about twenty years ago. >>>> >>>> Ah, that explains it to some extent. I was wondering if others had >>>> arrived at this exact specification. >>> >>> I guess it's worth noting that how the program should behave was >>> chosen after the fact, not before, to provide what was needed in >>> the larger context. >> >> It would be more interesting to note why this behaviour was needed in >> the larger context. Is there some reason for holding back? > > The best I can tell you is that it must have seemed like a good > idea at the time. I don't want to go back and try to reconstruct > what motivated a decision made 20 years ago. I remember the > choice but not what motivated it. It's possible it may have been > nothing more than intellectual interest, but I can't say that for > sure either. Sorry not to have a better answer for you. OK, thanks. For whatever reason, I appear to be in a minority of one in expecting the output to be the result of translation phases 1-3. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-12-10 23:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20201210152242.460@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #157207 |
On 2020-12-10, Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> OK, thanks. For whatever reason, I appear to be in a minority of one in
> expecting the output to be the result of translation phases 1-3.
By that you specifically mean that physical lines are gone and there
are only logical lines? (Is the context still a discussion of the
requirement to preserve uncommented line continuators?)
I can see why someone might think that it would be a useful requirement,
if for some reason it was beneficial to strip comments from code, but
that code had to stay below a maximum line length to which it had been
confined with the help of backslash-newline continutations.
There is only a minor flaw with that hypothesis: in fact, the program
can put out longer lines than are present in the input, even if
it preserves those markers, or no such markers are present at all:
The input:
abc/*
*/def
is confined to four columns, whereas the output
abc def
spans seven.
That is not easy to solve; newlines in comments cannot simply be
preserved because that will break:
#define foo/*
*/bar
Moreover, if we need to confine code below a line length, we can
achieve that by writing our filtering tools to just fold all the
physical lines to logical lines, and then use a final post-processing
filter to introduce the line continuations again.
To meet the requirement in one pass with one tool, what the tool could
do is: in addition to preserving all line continuations outside of
comments, would be to preserve them inside comments also, and,
furthermore, replace all newlines in /*...*/ comments with continuators
also.
Examples:
abc/* -> abc \
*/def def
abc/*\ -> abc \
\
\ \
\
*/def def
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-12-10 20:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a359e427-1679-46f4-ab7c-ed3a1a87109cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #157207 |
On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 5:11:29 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote: ... > OK, thanks. For whatever reason, I appear to be in a minority of one in > expecting the output to be the result of translation phases 1-3. You're not a minority of one - my first thought was the same. I also assumed, due to Tim's initial failure to say anything about escaped newlines, that the input would be the result of translation phases 1-2.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-12-10 21:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86y2i50w4l.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #157207 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: > >> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >> >>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >>> >>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >>>> >>>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Incidentally, the problem statement isn't something I just >>>>>>>> made up for the newsgroup, but is a simplified version of a >>>>>>>> utility program that is used as part of a larger toolkit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which utility is that? >>>>>> >>>>>> It's one small piece of a larger C development environment that >>>>>> I wrote about twenty years ago. >>>>> >>>>> Ah, that explains it to some extent. I was wondering if others >>>>> had arrived at this exact specification. >>>> >>>> I guess it's worth noting that how the program should behave was >>>> chosen after the fact, not before, to provide what was needed in >>>> the larger context. >>> >>> It would be more interesting to note why this behaviour was needed >>> in the larger context. Is there some reason for holding back? >> >> The best I can tell you is that it must have seemed like a good >> idea at the time. I don't want to go back and try to reconstruct >> what motivated a decision made 20 years ago. I remember the >> choice but not what motivated it. It's possible it may have been >> nothing more than intellectual interest, but I can't say that for >> sure either. Sorry not to have a better answer for you. > > OK, thanks. For whatever reason, I appear to be in a minority of one > in expecting the output to be the result of translation phases 1-3. I speculate that people who are very familiar with the C standard (and I think it's fair to count you as one of those) were more likely to read the exercise that way than those who are less familiar. In any case I think there were others who worked on the program who made the same decision there that you did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-12-09 03:03 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20201209030320.4dad4f2c624e613bd47fceed@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #157070 |
Tim Rentsch:
> The program is to remove (see below) C comments from a C
> source file input, and nothing else. An input with no C
> comments in it should be transmitted unchanged (provided
> its compile-time behavior is defined, see below). To give
> an obvious example, a multi-line macro definition that
> uses at the end of lines to continue the definition (but
> has no comments) should appear in the output exactly as in
> the input.
Are you certain that the requirement to keep escape line
endings in the code is satisifiable within O(1) memory
requirements? What about the following test case:
1: void main( void )
2: {a/\
3: \
4: b
5: }
where line 3 is repeated 1 000 000 times? Does anybody's
program process this input correctly, no? What about the
same with a modified line 4:
4: /b
Here are two small versions of this test:
test A: https://pastebin.com/raw/GcfBZNGY
test B: https://pastebin.com/raw/xZ1qAKgk
This the complications that we get because of unnatural
processing order required to keep escaped line endings in
the code!
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-12-08 21:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <PwWzH.19260$y74.3102@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #157108 |
On 12/8/20 7:03 PM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Tim Rentsch:
>
>> The program is to remove (see below) C comments from a C
>> source file input, and nothing else. An input with no C
>> comments in it should be transmitted unchanged (provided
>> its compile-time behavior is defined, see below). To give
>> an obvious example, a multi-line macro definition that
>> uses at the end of lines to continue the definition (but
>> has no comments) should appear in the output exactly as in
>> the input.
>
> Are you certain that the requirement to keep escape line
> endings in the code is satisifiable within O(1) memory
> requirements? What about the following test case:
>
> 1: void main( void )
> 2: {a/\
> 3: \
> 4: b
> 5: }
>
> where line 3 is repeated 1 000 000 times? Does anybody's
> program process this input correctly, no? What about the
> same with a modified line 4:
>
> 4: /b
>
> Here are two small versions of this test:
>
> test A: https://pastebin.com/raw/GcfBZNGY
> test B: https://pastebin.com/raw/xZ1qAKgk
>
> This the complications that we get because of unnatural
> processing order required to keep escaped line endings in
> the code!
>
There was no requirement that the answer be O(1), and in fact the
requirement to keep the line pasting when not in comments seems to say
that the processing needs to keep a count of how many of these have been
seen betwen the initial / and the next character so that if it isn't a *
or another / the / and the \<nl>s can be sent out. while if it is one of
those they can be omitted.
The other option would be to save the output location of stdout before
the / is output and rewind back to there, IF we had a promise that
stdout was actually a file (which in general we aren't)).
I think it is safe to assume that an unsigned long will be able to count
the number of escaped line ends we have seen, as if the file exceeds
that it will exceed reasonable implementation limits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-12-09 12:50 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20201209125005.ae7942ee9954d10964eb7e2d@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #157111 |
Richard Damon: > There was no requirement that the answer be O(1), Indeed, but initially I thought it a natural property of such a simple processor. > and in fact the requirement to keep the line pasting when > not in comments seems to say that the processing needs to > keep a count of how many of these have been seen betwen > the initial / and the next character so that if it isn't a > * or another / the / and the \<nl>s can be sent out. while > if it is one of those they can be omitted. Yes, it occurred to me in bed yesterday. This approach, however, sounds like a hack rather a general state machine with a limited buffer. But I shall have to implement it. > The other option would be to save the output location of > stdout before the / is output and rewind back to there, IF > we had a promise that stdout was actually a file (which in > general we aren't)). I considered that too, anc concluded it only delegated the memory requirement from the program to the rewindable output buffer. A counter is the better option. > I think it is safe to assume that an unsigned long will be > able to count the number of escaped line ends we have > seen, as if the file exceeds that it will exceed > reasonable implementation limits. I thought of a signed char... -- () ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-12-09 08:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v64AH.35493$7K1.13875@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #157136 |
On 12/9/20 4:50 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote: > Richard Damon: > >> There was no requirement that the answer be O(1), > > Indeed, but initially I thought it a natural property of > such a simple processor. > >> and in fact the requirement to keep the line pasting when >> not in comments seems to say that the processing needs to >> keep a count of how many of these have been seen betwen >> the initial / and the next character so that if it isn't a >> * or another / the / and the \<nl>s can be sent out. while >> if it is one of those they can be omitted. > > Yes, it occurred to me in bed yesterday. This approach, > however, sounds like a hack rather a general state machine > with a limited buffer. But I shall have to implement it. Basically, it says that the problem can not be fully solved by a finite state machine, but needs a more capable automation. > >> The other option would be to save the output location of >> stdout before the / is output and rewind back to there, IF >> we had a promise that stdout was actually a file (which in >> general we aren't)). > > I considered that too, anc concluded it only delegated the > memory requirement from the program to the rewindable output > buffer. A counter is the better option. Also, since stdout might not be rewindable, it isn't a real solution. > >> I think it is safe to assume that an unsigned long will be >> able to count the number of escaped line ends we have >> seen, as if the file exceeds that it will exceed >> reasonable implementation limits. > > I thought of a signed char... > I think a program might (un)reasonably contain more than 127 escaped newlines in a row. Since C itself has problems with files longer than what a unsigned long can index, it is a safe upper-bound (and in the scope of the program, minor additonal memory)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-12-08 23:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86mtyn5ta3.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #157108 |
Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> writes: > Tim Rentsch: > >> The program is to remove (see below) C comments from a C >> source file input, and nothing else. An input with no C >> comments in it should be transmitted unchanged (provided >> its compile-time behavior is defined, see below). To give >> an obvious example, a multi-line macro definition that >> uses at the end of lines to continue the definition (but >> has no comments) should appear in the output exactly as in >> the input. > > Are you certain that the requirement to keep escape line > endings in the code is satisifiable within O(1) memory > requirements? [...] Strictly speaking I think it is O( log n ) memory, but in practical terms a single counter should suffice, like in Richard Damon's explanation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-12-09 12:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <yj3AH.639808$PJla.616291@fx46.ams4> |
| In reply to | #157108 |
On 09/12/2020 00:03, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Tim Rentsch:
>
>> The program is to remove (see below) C comments from a C
>> source file input, and nothing else. An input with no C
>> comments in it should be transmitted unchanged (provided
>> its compile-time behavior is defined, see below). To give
>> an obvious example, a multi-line macro definition that
>> uses at the end of lines to continue the definition (but
>> has no comments) should appear in the output exactly as in
>> the input.
>
> Are you certain that the requirement to keep escape line
> endings in the code is satisifiable within O(1) memory
> requirements? What about the following test case:
>
> 1: void main( void )
> 2: {a/\
> 3: \
> 4: b
> 5: }
>
> where line 3 is repeated 1 000 000 times? Does anybody's
> program process this input correctly, no? What about the
> same with a modified line 4:
>
> 4: /b
I can't see the problem here. I can handle your test cases just using a
loop; no recursion and no heap memory needed.
My third attempt (code below) does attempt to deal with these line
continuations; I hadn't bothered before because no real programs used them.
The logic is simplified here by using a 'nextchar' routine that keeps
two characters in hand. It also converts \<newline> pairs to a single
character ('@' while developing, later changed to code 1 since '@' can
occur in strings).
This means line comments can start with //, /@/, /@@@/ etc, similar with
block comments, which can close with */, *@/, *@@/ etc.
The @ are counted, so if /@... isn't a comment, that number of @ are
output as normal. (putchar() will expand @ back to \<newline> in that case.)
It is still much more fiddly than my first attempt which was half the size.
This deals with your test cases easily (including 1000000 lines of \).
----------------------------------------------------
// bart#3
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int lastoutc=0;
int peekchar, peekchar2;
enum {lcchar=1}; // represents line continuation \<newline>
int nextchar(void) {
int c=peekchar;
peekchar=peekchar2;
peekchar2=getchar();
if (peekchar2==EOF) peekchar2=0;
if (peekchar=='\\' && peekchar2=='\n') {
peekchar=lcchar;
peekchar2=getchar();
}
return c;
}
void outchar(char c) {
if (lastoutc) {
if (lastoutc==lcchar) {
putchar('\\');
putchar('\n');
} else {
putchar(lastoutc);
}
}
lastoutc=c;
}
int nextchar_lt(void) {
int d;
d=nextchar();
while (d=='\\' && peekchar=='\n') {
nextchar();
d=nextchar();
}
return d;
}
int nextchar_lte(void) {
int d;
while (d=='\\' && peekchar=='\n') {
nextchar();
d=nextchar();
}
return d;
}
int commentchar(void){
int c, nlc=0;
while ((c=nextchar())==lcchar) {
++nlc;
}
if (c=='/' || c=='*') return c;
outchar('/');
while (nlc--) outchar(lcchar);
return c;
}
int main(void) {
int inlinecomment=0;
int inblockcomment=0;
int instring=0;
int inchar=0;
int c,d;
nextchar();
nextchar();
while (c=nextchar()) {
if (inlinecomment) {
if (c=='\n') {
inlinecomment=0;
outchar(c);
} else {
outchar(' ');
}
} else if (inblockcomment) {
if (c=='*') {
while (peekchar==lcchar) {
nextchar();
}
outchar(' ');
if (peekchar=='/') {
inblockcomment=0;
nextchar();
outchar(' ');
} else {
continue;
}
} else {
outchar((c=='\n' ? c : ' '));
}
} else if (instring) {
if (c!='\\' && peekchar=='\'') instring=0;
outchar(c);
outchar(nextchar());
} else if (inchar) {
if (c!='\\' && peekchar=='"') inchar=0;
outchar(c);
outchar(nextchar());
} else {
if (c=='/') {
c=commentchar();
if (c=='/') {
inlinecomment=1;
outchar(' ');
continue;
} else if (c=='*') {
inblockcomment=1;
outchar(' ');
continue;
}
}
if (c=='"') {
instring=1;
outchar(c);
} else if (c=='\'') {
inchar=1;
outchar(c);
} else {
outchar(c);
}
}
}
outchar(0);
}
----------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-02 19:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nD3IH.1417934$ckra.845422@fx37.ams4> |
| In reply to | #157146 |
On 09/12/2020 12:21, Bart wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
...
>
> int main(void) {
> int inlinecomment=0;
> int inblockcomment=0;
> int instring=0;
> int inchar=0;
> int c,d;
>
> nextchar();
> nextchar();
>
> while (c=nextchar()) {
> if (inlinecomment) {
> if (c=='\n') {
> inlinecomment=0;
> outchar(c);
> } else {
> outchar(' ');
> }
> } else if (inblockcomment) {
> if (c=='*') {
> while (peekchar==lcchar) {
> nextchar();
> }
> outchar(' ');
> if (peekchar=='/') {
> inblockcomment=0;
> nextchar();
> outchar(' ');
> } else {
> continue;
> }
> } else {
> outchar((c=='\n' ? c : ' '));
> }
> } else if (instring) {
> if (c!='\\' && peekchar=='\'') instring=0;
I had to use this program for real today, and that's when I found out it
didn't work!
This last line should be:
if (c!='\\' && peekchar=='\"') instring=0;
otherwise the string continues until the next ' rather than " character.
(I needed to find a function in a file but the name of it was used
myriad times in 1000s of lines of comments. The file was the 11,500-line
sqlite3.h which is probably beyond the capability of solutions that
recurse by character anyway.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-07 01:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86a6tlqdh8.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #158105 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 09/12/2020 12:21, Bart wrote: >> [...] > > I had to use this program for real today, and that's when I found > out it didn't work! > > This last line should be: > > if (c!='\\' && peekchar=='\"') instring=0; > > otherwise the string continues until the next ' rather than " > character. I made a new version incorporating this change, relative to your version 3 (and am treating it as version 4). This change is an improvement but there are still some important problems. How much other testing have you done? > (I needed to find a function in a file but the name of it was used > myriad times in 1000s of lines of comments. The file was the > 11,500-line sqlite3.h which is probably beyond the capability of > solutions that recurse by character anyway.) Several of the systems I work on have sqlite3.h in /usr/include, slightly smaller than the one you describe but roughly the same size. For a test I made a large file with all the .h files in the /usr/include directory tree, which was then replicated 12 times, resulting in a file of more than one gigabyte. The program I posted (including all the character-level recursive tail calls) processed the gigabyte+ input file with no problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-22 22:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <esIOH.350726$HFx7.217784@fx43.ams4> |
| In reply to | #158246 |
On 07/01/2021 09:54, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>> On 09/12/2020 12:21, Bart wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> I had to use this program for real today, and that's when I found
>> out it didn't work!
>>
>> This last line should be:
>>
>> if (c!='\\' && peekchar=='\"') instring=0;
>>
>> otherwise the string continues until the next ' rather than "
>> character.
>
> I made a new version incorporating this change, relative to your
> version 3 (and am treating it as version 4).
>
> This change is an improvement but there are still some important
> problems. How much other testing have you done?
[Not noticed this post until today.]
Obviously now enough; some ad hoc tests then working on a handful of
real programs to see if they compile to the same output. But not
thoroughly checked to see if they were 100% devoid of comments, just a
quick visual.
Today I did a bigger test (some 250 modules/headers of Seed7), which
showed up a blatant bug on string and char literals.
(I used 'colouring' of the output to clearly mark what is perceived to
be a string, block comment etc.)
I fixed that, but then was stuck on this:
"\\"
which can also manifest as:
"\\
\"
where I decided to give up. I already know any fix would be a hack. This
task doesn't seem to have any easy, elegant solutions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web