Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #170696 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-12 07:18 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-07-23 03:32 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 968 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 07:18 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 01:37 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2023-07-13 10:16 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 04:27 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 05:01 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? rek2 hispagatos <rek2@hispagatos.org.invalid> - 2023-07-13 14:10 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-13 17:51 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-13 18:56 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-13 19:39 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-13 20:30 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-13 22:29 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-14 00:19 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 06:43 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-14 11:47 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 11:04 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-14 21:01 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 21:21 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-14 13:52 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 12:08 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-14 17:10 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-14 21:32 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 22:04 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-14 21:02 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 21:35 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-15 14:30 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-15 16:36 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 15:49 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 16:02 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-16 01:18 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 16:25 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-16 11:07 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 05:42 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-16 16:17 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 07:44 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 09:57 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 10:34 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 10:41 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-16 20:55 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-17 01:54 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-17 02:43 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 03:16 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-17 14:54 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 07:08 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-17 16:43 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-17 17:19 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-21 00:05 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-21 16:52 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-17 17:21 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 09:44 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-17 21:24 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-17 15:10 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-17 18:46 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-17 21:27 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2023-07-20 20:40 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-20 19:27 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2023-07-20 22:16 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-20 19:17 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-17 16:15 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 09:17 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-17 21:41 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-17 23:02 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-17 08:22 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 15:01 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 15:01 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-18 09:26 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 00:33 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 00:35 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 00:37 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-18 13:05 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 17:56 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 09:13 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-18 12:18 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 01:24 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 15:06 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-17 23:11 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 15:30 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-18 00:07 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-18 01:28 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-18 02:20 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-18 02:12 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-18 03:25 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-18 09:55 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-18 12:29 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 02:29 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-19 09:16 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 12:38 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-19 14:24 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 14:12 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-19 16:33 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 16:37 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-19 16:55 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 19:44 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-18 12:06 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2023-07-18 12:16 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-18 14:09 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-18 16:36 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-18 17:59 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-19 09:45 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 03:31 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-19 06:01 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 01:19 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 03:02 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 04:30 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-19 15:28 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 15:12 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 15:23 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-20 10:44 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 15:37 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-19 23:01 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 16:43 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-20 10:41 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-21 00:24 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 16:58 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 17:30 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 17:50 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 22:46 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-21 09:57 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 02:24 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-21 13:33 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-21 02:01 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 18:28 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-21 11:21 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 03:44 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-21 12:17 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-21 15:05 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-21 14:42 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-21 16:22 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-21 16:40 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-21 18:56 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-21 20:26 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-21 21:06 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-22 18:34 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-22 20:09 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 14:34 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-21 23:03 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 15:30 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 21:49 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-22 11:41 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 04:15 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 15:51 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-22 19:05 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-23 00:22 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 16:38 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-23 01:15 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-23 13:45 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-23 15:06 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-23 17:54 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-23 17:56 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 11:03 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-23 20:15 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-23 20:18 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-24 09:50 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-24 10:58 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 06:02 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-24 14:08 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-24 18:42 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-05 10:22 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-05 18:02 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-05 18:32 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-05 20:00 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-06 01:42 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-14 04:54 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-14 18:22 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-25 19:44 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 21:09 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 00:21 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-26 11:17 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 03:31 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 16:52 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-27 00:47 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-26 21:19 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 20:21 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 21:49 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 02:04 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 02:42 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-27 17:36 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-27 05:50 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-27 20:03 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-26 11:04 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 03:34 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-12 10:57 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 16:37 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 08:16 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-13 15:48 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-15 13:05 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-15 14:20 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-25 20:08 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-24 20:19 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-21 14:52 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-21 16:14 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 12:52 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-22 18:29 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-22 21:56 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 16:11 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-23 00:45 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-23 17:24 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-23 17:28 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-23 16:45 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-24 10:04 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-24 07:43 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-23 22:10 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 14:51 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-23 23:12 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 15:19 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-24 20:25 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-24 17:22 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 09:52 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-25 02:52 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-24 17:37 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-24 16:19 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-24 20:34 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-25 02:42 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-25 10:36 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-25 16:41 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-25 16:22 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-25 17:40 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-26 02:40 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-26 11:30 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-26 06:41 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-27 01:06 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-27 01:55 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 18:03 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-27 03:17 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-27 11:50 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-27 02:50 +0000
Overflow and undefined behaviour (WAS: you think rust may outthrone c?) Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 16:43 +0000
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour (WAS: you think rust may outthrone c?) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 19:15 +0200
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour (WAS: you think rust may outthrone c?) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-25 18:43 +0100
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 15:03 -0700
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 04:10 +0000
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 21:51 -0700
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-26 22:07 +0100
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-26 21:55 +0100
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-26 22:26 +0100
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 17:26 -0700
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-27 01:38 +0100
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2023-08-13 14:53 +0300
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-13 13:07 +0100
What's wrong? The phrasing, that's what! (Was: Overflow and undefined behaviour) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-08-13 13:16 +0000
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-13 16:25 +0100
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2023-08-14 12:10 +0300
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-14 04:33 -0700
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2023-08-14 14:56 +0300
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-25 17:34 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-25 20:55 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-28 02:46 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 15:53 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-24 22:33 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-24 09:45 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 14:29 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-26 07:03 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 07:41 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-26 16:01 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-26 15:21 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-26 19:13 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-26 18:41 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-26 22:07 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-27 13:34 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 05:15 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-27 15:14 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 06:31 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-27 16:17 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 07:53 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-27 20:45 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-04 00:21 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-04 18:29 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 11:35 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-05 06:09 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-27 14:30 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-27 16:48 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-27 17:18 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 09:45 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-27 19:18 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-01 18:10 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-01 15:00 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-01 15:41 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-01 16:16 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-01 17:50 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-01 17:04 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-01 18:25 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-01 18:26 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-01 19:18 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-01 17:41 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-01 21:01 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 03:41 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-02 12:09 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 05:01 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-02 17:04 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 09:10 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-02 23:48 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 15:25 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-03 11:42 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 02:15 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 14:20 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-04 17:12 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 08:20 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-04 18:04 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 09:17 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-05 13:39 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 05:08 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 17:18 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 16:35 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 09:04 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-08 16:41 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 18:46 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 10:04 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-08 17:53 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-09 10:41 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-08 18:55 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-09 00:26 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 16:51 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 20:23 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-09 13:42 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 05:32 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 13:00 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-09 05:35 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 05:48 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 14:17 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 13:06 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-09 13:44 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2023-08-09 14:00 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 15:09 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 07:15 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-09 15:48 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 08:54 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-09 15:18 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 16:01 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-09 15:50 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 17:51 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-09 21:51 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 13:16 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 09:18 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-10 00:05 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 19:10 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 16:24 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-09 14:24 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-09 17:18 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-09 17:38 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 13:35 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2023-08-15 17:51 +0300
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 17:18 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-15 16:01 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2023-08-15 23:11 +0300
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-15 15:48 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-02 23:40 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-02 17:58 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-02 19:07 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-02 22:13 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-03 02:07 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-03 02:34 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-03 11:39 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-03 15:10 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-03 17:37 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-03 18:56 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-05 23:11 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-06 00:21 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-06 00:54 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-06 11:18 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-06 17:06 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-06 17:22 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 14:40 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-06 23:04 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 15:19 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-06 23:33 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 17:20 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-07 01:52 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 18:12 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-07 10:35 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-07 07:41 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 04:53 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-07 14:15 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-07 16:13 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 08:40 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-07 17:05 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 09:43 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-08 00:51 +0100
Making accountants cross (wa Re: you think rust may outthrone c?) Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-10 15:38 +0100
Re: Making accountants cross (wa Re: you think rust may outthrone c?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-10 16:26 +0100
Re: Making accountants cross (wa Re: you think rust may outthrone c?) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-10 16:35 +0100
Re: Making accountants cross (wa Re: you think rust may outthrone c?) Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-10 16:31 +0000
Re: Making accountants cross (wa Re: you think rust may outthrone c?) Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2023-08-10 16:59 +0000
Re: Making accountants cross (wa Re: you think rust may outthrone c?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 11:13 -0700
Re: Making accountants cross (wa Re: you think rust may outthrone c?) Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-10 18:26 +0000
Re: Making accountants cross (wa Re: you think rust may outthrone c?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 11:30 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 17:39 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-07 18:35 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-07 21:51 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-07 23:53 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 01:28 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-07 22:21 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 12:05 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 04:13 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 15:04 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-08 08:22 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 15:16 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-08 09:15 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 18:33 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-08 21:58 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 11:05 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 11:53 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-09 05:10 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-08 13:57 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-08 08:55 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 18:23 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 15:28 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 15:17 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 01:08 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 18:31 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-08 00:43 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-08 06:20 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-08 15:56 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-08 08:35 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-09 02:44 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-09 05:53 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-07 16:20 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-08-07 13:10 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 10:24 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-07 22:46 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 14:52 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 01:01 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 17:59 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 11:34 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-08 08:34 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 14:51 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 23:19 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-08 22:58 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 00:33 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-08 23:50 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-09 04:07 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 14:08 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-03 17:09 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 18:39 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-03 02:12 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 20:08 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-03 23:42 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 15:44 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-04 07:44 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-04 07:14 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-04 17:14 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-04 13:56 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-04 15:25 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-04 17:05 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-04 22:32 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-04 17:46 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-04 21:47 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-05 00:43 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-05 00:15 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-05 01:33 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-05 02:11 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-05 11:00 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-06 16:50 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-06 18:40 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-07 00:31 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-04 22:44 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-05 10:46 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-06 07:53 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-07 11:53 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-06 16:43 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-04 19:50 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-05 02:58 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-05 14:17 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-05 17:38 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-06 07:56 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-06 13:38 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-07 14:12 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-07 16:03 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-07 16:24 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-07 17:54 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-07 14:16 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 05:45 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-07 22:17 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-07 22:19 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-07 22:40 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 18:07 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-08 05:53 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 15:31 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 18:17 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 09:31 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-09 22:27 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 18:49 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-08 16:39 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-04 00:37 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-04 18:07 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 10:32 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-04 19:36 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 11:53 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 12:57 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 12:32 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 03:59 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 12:19 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-08 08:40 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 12:17 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-04 18:00 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-04 19:25 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 13:11 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 04:22 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 14:45 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 06:02 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-08 15:39 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 08:36 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-09 02:15 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 12:36 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-08 14:05 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 15:31 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-08 14:34 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 16:11 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-08 15:49 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 21:05 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-08 09:02 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 16:27 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 16:09 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 16:42 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 18:38 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 09:47 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 19:14 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-08 10:04 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-08 17:32 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 10:47 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-09 03:04 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 19:44 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 11:22 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 11:36 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 11:58 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 14:29 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-09 16:02 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 14:17 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2023-08-09 11:05 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 13:32 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 14:32 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 15:07 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 15:48 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 16:08 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-09 15:52 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 18:09 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-09 16:34 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-12 10:36 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 02:58 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-13 08:18 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-13 07:07 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-13 07:34 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-13 08:24 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 14:10 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 00:18 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 08:08 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-13 03:44 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 06:16 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-13 15:53 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 08:58 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-13 17:36 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-13 03:38 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-12 12:12 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-13 09:30 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-13 16:02 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-13 17:48 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-13 18:53 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-13 20:41 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-13 20:40 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-14 04:28 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-14 15:52 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-14 16:06 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 14:19 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-15 14:33 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 17:24 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-15 15:58 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-15 15:58 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-15 15:27 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-11 08:43 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 11:17 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-08-11 10:50 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 13:09 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-11 13:32 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-11 07:33 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-11 15:38 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-08-11 16:45 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 10:20 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 18:35 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-08-11 20:33 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 22:09 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 22:59 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-08-11 23:25 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-12 00:26 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 14:24 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-11 21:30 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 13:44 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 14:55 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-11 21:38 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 22:46 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 14:32 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-12 12:07 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 15:34 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-11 15:39 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 17:26 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-11 16:53 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 18:15 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 18:46 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 14:35 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 19:43 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-13 09:34 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-13 16:02 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-13 17:38 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 14:37 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-15 14:34 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 16:17 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 17:25 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-15 16:00 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2023-08-11 10:05 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 11:48 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2023-08-09 15:06 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-09 16:16 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-10 09:38 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-10 10:51 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-09 15:57 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-10 00:15 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-10 00:22 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 17:02 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-10 14:27 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-10 00:01 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-10 00:39 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 17:08 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-10 00:21 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-10 02:18 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-10 02:28 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 22:42 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-10 14:23 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 19:10 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-10 14:24 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-10 14:21 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-10 03:16 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-10 14:25 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-10 16:18 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-10 15:53 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-10 16:15 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-10 16:59 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-10 10:12 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2023-08-10 17:16 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-10 10:27 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-10 17:54 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-10 18:18 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-10 18:16 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 14:44 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 14:56 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-10 23:17 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 16:06 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 16:20 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 16:38 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 16:58 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 18:43 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 01:30 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 17:58 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 07:03 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 07:28 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 07:47 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 08:06 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 16:13 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 08:28 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 08:37 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 08:46 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 08:58 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 09:52 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 18:21 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-10 23:09 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-11 01:14 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 05:42 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-11 06:07 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-11 13:30 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-11 19:41 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 08:21 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 11:14 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-10 17:39 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-10 09:40 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-10 17:48 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 14:45 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 13:52 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-15 14:40 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 06:26 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 15:43 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 10:09 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 07:36 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-10 16:33 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-10 16:57 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-10 01:10 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-10 16:08 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-10 09:49 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-10 18:08 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-10 21:04 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-10 20:56 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-10 14:20 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-08 10:53 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-08 18:30 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-09 23:14 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 19:07 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 15:46 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 00:15 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-08 23:54 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 17:52 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 02:22 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 19:01 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 16:57 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-08 14:03 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 13:13 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-28 23:35 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 19:21 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-29 21:15 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 14:45 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 00:05 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-29 11:19 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-29 13:47 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-29 15:10 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-29 16:00 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-29 15:30 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 14:22 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 14:49 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-27 14:07 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-27 16:03 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-01 19:43 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-01 18:37 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-01 22:16 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-01 21:53 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-01 23:28 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-02 01:54 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-02 11:14 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-02 18:23 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-02 19:02 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-03 11:28 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-03 11:53 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-03 11:54 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-02 18:12 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 14:45 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-26 15:02 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 17:08 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 12:38 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 12:29 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-21 09:46 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 02:29 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-22 21:04 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 14:38 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 07:00 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 17:31 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 14:54 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-20 10:55 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-21 03:07 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-19 12:07 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 15:15 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 17:08 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-19 17:30 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-19 19:22 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 20:28 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-19 16:27 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 17:06 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-19 20:39 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 20:21 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 15:42 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-19 23:31 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 18:53 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 01:46 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 09:51 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 03:36 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-20 12:13 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 13:06 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-20 11:28 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-20 16:44 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-07-21 01:22 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 02:03 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-22 15:37 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-20 02:08 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-22 15:43 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-20 11:07 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-21 02:49 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-21 10:17 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-21 16:30 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 12:54 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-22 15:56 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-19 17:22 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-19 21:01 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-19 20:46 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 20:47 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-19 21:49 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-20 11:42 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "minf...@arcor.de" <minforth@arcor.de> - 2023-07-20 05:39 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-20 14:55 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-20 15:03 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-20 18:22 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 15:54 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-21 10:18 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 13:04 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-21 10:20 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-20 20:51 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-20 11:38 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 13:03 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-21 10:24 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 13:03 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 16:17 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-21 14:35 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-18 14:34 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 08:04 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 21:27 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-18 12:10 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-18 16:43 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-18 14:59 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 17:44 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-18 00:14 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-18 10:13 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 16:10 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 16:13 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 16:16 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 16:29 -0700
Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? (Was: you think rust may outthrone c?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-07-14 11:24 +0000
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 11:30 +0000
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 05:20 -0700
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 12:29 +0000
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 05:46 -0700
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 13:01 +0000
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 06:07 -0700
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 13:26 +0000
Why not? (Was: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-07-14 13:32 +0000
Re: Why not? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 13:43 +0000
Re: Why not? (killfiles) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-07-14 14:10 +0000
Re: Why not? (killfiles) kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 14:28 +0000
Re: Why not? (killfiles) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-07-14 18:46 +0000
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 06:52 -0700
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 02:21 -0700
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-07-14 09:14 -0400
Posting for our own amusement (Was: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-07-14 13:29 +0000
Re: Posting for our own amusement (Was: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point?) "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-07-14 07:26 -0700
Re: Posting for our own amusement (Was: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-07-14 14:39 +0000
Re: Posting for our own amusement (Was: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-14 17:30 +0200
Re: Posting for our own amusement (Was: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point?) Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-14 20:53 +0000
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 06:30 -0700
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 13:30 +0000
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-07-14 12:29 +0000
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 12:46 +0000
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-14 20:46 +0000
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 21:49 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-14 20:52 +0800
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 13:16 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-14 17:34 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 16:20 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-14 19:11 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 17:26 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2023-07-15 04:42 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-15 12:29 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-15 18:40 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-20 19:05 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-14 21:25 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 22:30 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 15:48 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 22:56 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-15 14:41 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-15 12:55 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-15 18:46 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-15 17:28 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-15 20:20 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-15 18:42 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-22 06:46 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-15 14:12 +0800
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 01:05 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-20 18:54 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-15 08:59 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-07-17 02:26 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-14 20:43 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 21:58 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-14 09:32 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 07:58 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-14 12:56 +0200
OT Re: you think rust may outthrone c? jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2023-07-14 10:20 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-14 20:48 +0800
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-07-17 18:33 +0300
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-17 20:47 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-17 21:14 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-17 21:47 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 18:26 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-17 17:00 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 20:03 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-17 20:28 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 18:06 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 11:42 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-17 19:18 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 12:20 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-17 20:26 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 01:06 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 06:37 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 18:07 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 09:17 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 11:06 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 19:16 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 11:07 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 08:49 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 16:25 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 19:48 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 02:06 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 09:32 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 06:06 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 06:13 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 14:57 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 07:10 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 16:29 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 07:33 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 16:35 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 01:30 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 15:00 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-22 14:53 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 07:22 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 16:32 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 07:42 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 17:01 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2023-07-22 17:45 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 18:22 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2023-07-22 19:00 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 19:06 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2023-07-22 19:34 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 14:15 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 14:20 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 14:25 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 14:33 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 03:23 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 03:28 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-22 16:48 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 18:24 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-22 19:02 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 20:06 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 14:07 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 03:29 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 00:52 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 02:03 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 02:18 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 13:44 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 13:43 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 05:03 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 05:07 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 05:14 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 05:54 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 05:31 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 05:42 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 15:16 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 06:39 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 15:49 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-23 14:56 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 16:11 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-23 14:34 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-23 18:43 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 07:19 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 16:34 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 07:48 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 07:58 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 08:00 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 17:01 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 08:09 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 16:59 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 08:02 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 17:07 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 08:18 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 17:42 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 08:51 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 18:26 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 08:42 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 09:20 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 18:27 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 14:06 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 03:30 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 00:58 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 01:06 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 15:16 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 06:40 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 08:49 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 08:57 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 09:01 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 18:30 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 03:32 -0700
Page 43 of 49 — ← Prev page 1 … 41 42 [43] 44 45 … 49 Next page →
| From | kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-15 12:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u8u3ff$cr1u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170786 |
Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> wrote: > I think you could get such a bug if you assume that > the letters of the alphabet all have consecutive values. > It's true of many computers today, but was not true of > the mainframe when I was at university, which used > EBCDIC instead of ASCII. As I understand it, this is > not "Implementation Defined behaviour" because there is > no requirement to say what values the letters have. I see, thanks. That would satisfy the requirements I gave. However, saying "just like other bugs" somehow seems to give the impression that there would be many bugs that could satisfy the requirements. Finding a single example is a very good thing, but it would be more convincing if there were more examples. br, KK
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-15 18:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u8ui58$ediv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170787 |
On 15/07/2023 14:29, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote: > Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> wrote: >> I think you could get such a bug if you assume that >> the letters of the alphabet all have consecutive values. >> It's true of many computers today, but was not true of >> the mainframe when I was at university, which used >> EBCDIC instead of ASCII. As I understand it, this is >> not "Implementation Defined behaviour" because there is >> no requirement to say what values the letters have. > > I see, thanks. That would satisfy the requirements I gave. > > However, saying "just like other bugs" somehow seems to > give the impression that there would be many bugs that > could satisfy the requirements. > > Finding a single example is a very good thing, but it > would be more convincing if there were more examples. > A "bug" is just code not doing what you want it to do. Some kinds of bugs have classifications like "integer overflow" that are clearly "undefined behaviour" in C standard terms. They may or may not be undefined behaviour for a given C implementation, and can behave differently between implementations. Some are coding bugs that are not C UB - maybe you have a pointer to an int, but sometimes it points to the wrong int. And some are specification bugs. So if you have a specification that says "make the file path by concatenating the directory name and file name with a backslash character", you have a specification bug that affects *nix systems but not Windows systems - and no C language UB in sight. Or to give you a different example, one embedded development tool I used (long ago) worked fine on my older computers, then crashed on newer ones. It turned out that a timing loop overflowed (or had a divide by zero - I forget which) on processors faster than about 200 MHz. There was no UB in the code when running on older systems, but it failed on newer ones. Any time you have UB in your code - general UB, meaning the behaviour is not defined anywhere - you don't know what will happen. The C standard did attempt to distinguish between "bounded undefined behaviour" and "critical undefined behaviour", but since "bounded undefined behaviour" can have knock-on effects leading to "critical undefined behaviour", the distinction is moot. The result could be all kinds of odd things - and one of the possibilities is always "it works as expected". The software world is full of examples of "it worked when /I/ tested it" bugs. Some of these will be caused by C standard UB bugs, but others are bugs that do not have any UB at the C level. How you pick your examples of bugs that are not "UB" will depend on exactly what you are meaning by "UB" at the time - IMHO, the most general definition of "UB" is synonymous with a "bug" because the code is doing something other than what was defined in the specification for the code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-20 19:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86bkg6vx1y.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #170786 |
Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> writes: > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:26:20?PM UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote: > >> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> >>>> Your code containing UB can work fine in the environment that you >>>> use, but it might not work when you compile it elsewhere. >>> >>> Just like other bugs. >> >> Could you please provide a simple example of such a bug, >> i.e. it must a bug that is not caused by relying on >> Implementation Defined behavior or Undefined Behavior? > > I think you could get such a bug if you assume that the letters of > the alphabet all have consecutive values. It's true of many > computers today, but was not true of the mainframe when I was at > university, which used EBCDIC instead of ASCII. As I understand it, > this is not "Implementation Defined behaviour" because there is no > requirement to say what values the letters have. The values of members of the execution character set are indeed implementation defined. Section 5.2.1, paragraph 1.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 21:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20230714140259.603@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #170745 |
On 2023-07-14, Kalevi Kolttonen <kalevi@kolttonen.fi> wrote:
> Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
>>
>>> No. Lots of C programs are quite portable. That includes e.g. Linux
>>> kernel, BSD kernels, PostgreSQL, Apache, Postfix, and many,
>>> many other Unix daemons. PostgreSQL runs not only on Unix
>>> but even on Windows. Possibly OpenLDAP does, too.
>>
>> Yet none of these programs strictly conform to a Standard. They are
>> more or less conforming programs, meaning that they are acceptable to
>> the C implementations that they have been ported to.
>
> You could well be right. But invoking UB is something so evil
> that no C or C++ program must ever do it, meaning that the
> programmers must know enough to avoid it.
This is simply untrue. Undefined behavior is one of the main areas
of vendor extension.
Formally, undefined behavior means that ISO C provides no definition
of behavior. That doesn't mean nobody else provides no definition
of behavior.
A strict interpretation of ISO C is possible under which the use of
any functions that are not in ISO C, and not in the program (i.e. not
defined somewhere in a translation unit of the program) are undefined
behavior. If you use a function called read(), but haven't written
that yourself, and the program translates, links and executes anyway,
that is thanks to undefined behavior.
Merely including a nonstandard header like <unistd.h> is also undefined
behavior. The header is not defined by the program, so there are two
possibilities:
1. The header is not found, which is a diagnosable error.
2. The header is found, necessarily outside of the program, and
replaced by its content. But that content is unknown; it is not
specified by ISO C. The implementor has to document what it is;
e.g. that it provides a POSIX implementation with a <unistd.h>
header. A different implementor, who hates POSIX users and their
programs, could document that #incluce <unistd.h> wipes the disk and
powers down the machine; that would be ISO C conforming.
Secondly, there can be undefined behaviors according to ISO C for
which we can infer a definition anyway, in spite of not having
a documented definition from a vendor.
If we have the source code to a compiler or library (or are otherwise
able to reverse engineer those tools), we can study what the actual
behavior is. We might find that the undefined construct is handled in
such a way that no undefined behavior takes place in the implementation,
and that the construct is handled according to some meaningful rules. If
we freeze that toolchain source code (or else keep monitoring new
releases for regressions), we will get those reliable behaviors.
We can infer definedness of behavior of the object code. Even though
a[i] = i++ is undefined, once we obtain an object file, we can
disassemble it, and find no undefined behavior at the machine level. We
can reverse-engineer it to determine the specification of actual
behavior, and find it to be consistent and reliable. (And then, we can
change the source code so that it achieves that same actual behavior
(possibly even identical object code) in a defined way: a good strategy
for eliminating ambiguity, while reducing the risk of breaking behaviors
relied on by unknown downstream users.)
We can infer definedness of behavior by certain reasoning which leads
to the conclusion that, certain technolology being what it is, it
is not possible for the behavior to go astray.
For instance, if we know that translation units are compiled in
complete isolation from each other, and if we know that translated
files do not retain any information about type (such as the names of
structures and structure members) then we can conclude that two
structure types which have the same shape in different translation
units are de facto compatible.
If one translation unit has functions that accept a "struct point { int
x, y; }", we can link it with another translation unit which declares
the type as "struct cell { int a, b; }" and calls the functions using
that type. ISO C says it is undefined, but it's not possible to write
a program which demonstrates a problem, under a given object file
and linking technology.
For that matter, we could make it "struct cell { long a, b; }" if
the type int and long have the same representation. All that matters
is that we don't break the ABI. But the concept of ABI is outside of
ISO C.
Mixed langauge programming is udefined. If you make program with
C modules and Fortran modules, it's neither a well-defined C program,
nor a well-defined Fortran program.
So the topic of undefined behavior is broad and nuanced; it's not
just a simple category of "bad thing that must never happen",
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 22:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u8si9j$53qt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170770 |
Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> wrote:
> On 2023-07-14, Kalevi Kolttonen <kalevi@kolttonen.fi> wrote:
>> Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
>>>
>>>> No. Lots of C programs are quite portable. That includes e.g. Linux
>>>> kernel, BSD kernels, PostgreSQL, Apache, Postfix, and many,
>>>> many other Unix daemons. PostgreSQL runs not only on Unix
>>>> but even on Windows. Possibly OpenLDAP does, too.
>>>
>>> Yet none of these programs strictly conform to a Standard. They are
>>> more or less conforming programs, meaning that they are acceptable to
>>> the C implementations that they have been ported to.
>>
>> You could well be right. But invoking UB is something so evil
>> that no C or C++ program must ever do it, meaning that the
>> programmers must know enough to avoid it.
>
> This is simply untrue. Undefined behavior is one of the main areas
> of vendor extension.
Oh no! What have I been thinking!
> Formally, undefined behavior means that ISO C provides no definition
> of behavior.
That I knew...
> That doesn't mean nobody else provides no definition
> of behavior.
...and that I did not! So foolish of me, this is terrible.
I have had serious delusions about the proper meaning for many
years without ever even realizing it.
> A strict interpretation of ISO C is possible under which the use of
> any functions that are not in ISO C, and not in the program (i.e. not
> defined somewhere in a translation unit of the program) are undefined
> behavior. If you use a function called read(), but haven't written
> that yourself, and the program translates, links and executes anyway,
> that is thanks to undefined behavior.
The amount of my ignorance really hurts. Delusions are a horrible
thing to have.
> Merely including a nonstandard header like <unistd.h> is also undefined
> behavior. The header is not defined by the program, so there are two
> possibilities:
>
> 1. The header is not found, which is a diagnosable error.
>
> 2. The header is found, necessarily outside of the program, and
> replaced by its content. But that content is unknown; it is not
> specified by ISO C. The implementor has to document what it is;
> e.g. that it provides a POSIX implementation with a <unistd.h>
> header. A different implementor, who hates POSIX users and their
> programs, could document that #incluce <unistd.h> wipes the disk and
> powers down the machine; that would be ISO C conforming.
>
> Secondly, there can be undefined behaviors according to ISO C for
> which we can infer a definition anyway, in spite of not having
> a documented definition from a vendor.
Got it.
> If we have the source code to a compiler or library (or are otherwise
> able to reverse engineer those tools), we can study what the actual
> behavior is. We might find that the undefined construct is handled in
> such a way that no undefined behavior takes place in the implementation,
> and that the construct is handled according to some meaningful rules. If
> we freeze that toolchain source code (or else keep monitoring new
> releases for regressions), we will get those reliable behaviors.
I am not at all sure whether I got it or not. Not blaming you, though.
> We can infer definedness of behavior of the object code. Even though
> a[i] = i++ is undefined, once we obtain an object file, we can
> disassemble it, and find no undefined behavior at the machine level. We
> can reverse-engineer it to determine the specification of actual
> behavior, and find it to be consistent and reliable. (And then, we can
> change the source code so that it achieves that same actual behavior
> (possibly even identical object code) in a defined way: a good strategy
> for eliminating ambiguity, while reducing the risk of breaking behaviors
> relied on by unknown downstream users.)
Man, that's too complicated for me.
> We can infer definedness of behavior by certain reasoning which leads
> to the conclusion that, certain technolology being what it is, it
> is not possible for the behavior to go astray.
As a more general conclusion, that makes a bit more sense to me.
> For instance, if we know that translation units are compiled in
> complete isolation from each other, and if we know that translated
> files do not retain any information about type (such as the names of
> structures and structure members) then we can conclude that two
> structure types which have the same shape in different translation
> units are de facto compatible.
Does that mean some kind of isomorphism between the two structure
types?
> If one translation unit has functions that accept a "struct point { int
> x, y; }", we can link it with another translation unit which declares
> the type as "struct cell { int a, b; }" and calls the functions using
> that type. ISO C says it is undefined, but it's not possible to write
> a program which demonstrates a problem, under a given object file
> and linking technology.
Well I guess it can work since the names are not important, it all
depends on the identical shape...?
> For that matter, we could make it "struct cell { long a, b; }" if
> the type int and long have the same representation. All that matters
> is that we don't break the ABI. But the concept of ABI is outside of
> ISO C.
I got it.
> Mixed langauge programming is udefined. If you make program with
> C modules and Fortran modules, it's neither a well-defined C program,
> nor a well-defined Fortran program.
I got it, too.
> So the topic of undefined behavior is broad and nuanced; it's not
> just a simple category of "bad thing that must never happen",
I am shocked and mildly amused by my horrendous delusions. Your
explanation was indeed broad yet detailed. My deluded view was
that consisting of "bad thing that must never happen". I was
also *way too sure* that my view was correct... So pathetic.
Many thanks for your time and setting the record straigth.
Why does wisdom take so long to achieve... :-(
br,
KK
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 15:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <875y6myurr.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #170776 |
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
> Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> wrote:
[...
>> This is simply untrue. Undefined behavior is one of the main areas
>> of vendor extension.
>
> Oh no! What have I been thinking!
>
>> Formally, undefined behavior means that ISO C provides no definition
>> of behavior.
>
> That I knew...
>
>> That doesn't mean nobody else provides no definition
>> of behavior.
>
> ...and that I did not! So foolish of me, this is terrible.
> I have had serious delusions about the proper meaning for many
> years without ever even realizing it.
>
>> A strict interpretation of ISO C is possible under which the use of
>> any functions that are not in ISO C, and not in the program (i.e. not
>> defined somewhere in a translation unit of the program) are undefined
>> behavior. If you use a function called read(), but haven't written
>> that yourself, and the program translates, links and executes anyway,
>> that is thanks to undefined behavior.
>
> The amount of my ignorance really hurts. Delusions are a horrible
> thing to have.
[...]
Learning something shouldn't be painful.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 22:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u8sjqj$57ab$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170777 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote: > Learning something shouldn't be painful. It should not be, but when you realize that you have been a delusional fool for several years, you really cannot be very proud of that. Not only it, but I am also guilty of *spreading false information*. br, KK
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-15 14:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u8u45v$cscl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170778 |
On 15/07/2023 00:56, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote: > Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote: >> Learning something shouldn't be painful. > > It should not be, but when you realize that you have > been a delusional fool for several years, you really > cannot be very proud of that. Not only it, but I > am also guilty of *spreading false information*. > In the C standards, the term "undefined behaviour" is defined as: "behavior, upon use of a nonportable or erroneous program construct or of erroneous data, for which this International Standard imposes no requirements" So extensions to C are undefined behaviour in respect to the C standard, but defined behaviour in respect to the implementation. As far as the standard is concerned, and therefore for the C language in general, signed integer overflow is undefined behaviour. However, if you are coding for "gcc -fwrapv", then the behaviour is fully defined by the implementation. So "undefined behaviour" can mean "not defined by the C standards", or it can also mean "not defined by the C standards, the implementation's documentation, and any other standards, manuals, or references relevant to the program in question". It is important to be clear what you mean by the term at the time (I am not always good enough at that myself). Here in comp.lang.c, the default for all terms is the definition in the C standards. But sometimes the second meaning (or a variation of it) is more relevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-15 12:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u8u4vf$cuu1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170789 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > So extensions to C are undefined behaviour in respect to the C standard, > but defined behaviour in respect to the implementation. As far as the > standard is concerned, and therefore for the C language in general, > signed integer overflow is undefined behaviour. However, if you are > coding for "gcc -fwrapv", then the behaviour is fully defined by the > implementation. Right, and that is precisely what I did not realize before. My simplistic "understanding" was that UB is always something that will produce results that are, well, not guaranteed to be one way or the other. Relaying on Implementation Defined behaviour can of course be perfectly acceptable as long as you do it consciously and document it somehow. br, KK
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-15 18:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u8uihh$ediv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170790 |
On 15/07/2023 14:55, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> So extensions to C are undefined behaviour in respect to the C standard, >> but defined behaviour in respect to the implementation. As far as the >> standard is concerned, and therefore for the C language in general, >> signed integer overflow is undefined behaviour. However, if you are >> coding for "gcc -fwrapv", then the behaviour is fully defined by the >> implementation. > > Right, and that is precisely what I did not realize before. My > simplistic "understanding" was that UB is always something that > will produce results that are, well, not guaranteed to be one > way or the other. That definition is correct. The only question is about where the guarantees come from. The C standard may not guarantee what happens if you try to dereference a null pointer, but perhaps the OS you are running on does - then it is UB as far as the C standard is concerned, but not UB for your target platform. (A compiler for that OS may still view it as UB for error checking and/or optimisation purposes even if the OS defines the behaviour.) > > Relaying on Implementation Defined behaviour can of course > be perfectly acceptable as long as you do it consciously and > document it somehow. > Yes. Often the requirement documentation can be implicit, if it is reasonable enough. For example, if you want to have an 8-bit unsigned integer, just use the type "uint8_t" - the code will fail to compile if used on an implementation that does not have 8-bit types. But if you have some needs that are less common, make them explicit - and, if possible, have compile-time checks (static assertions or pre-processor checks).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-15 17:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u8ul00$ekod$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170794 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 15/07/2023 14:55, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>> So extensions to C are undefined behaviour in respect to the C standard, >>> but defined behaviour in respect to the implementation. As far as the >>> standard is concerned, and therefore for the C language in general, >>> signed integer overflow is undefined behaviour. However, if you are >>> coding for "gcc -fwrapv", then the behaviour is fully defined by the >>> implementation. >> >> Right, and that is precisely what I did not realize before. My >> simplistic "understanding" was that UB is always something that >> will produce results that are, well, not guaranteed to be one >> way or the other. > > That definition is correct. The only question is about where the > guarantees come from. The C standard may not guarantee what happens if > you try to dereference a null pointer, but perhaps the OS you are > running on does - then it is UB as far as the C standard is concerned, > but not UB for your target platform. (A compiler for that OS may still > view it as UB for error checking and/or optimisation purposes even if > the OS defines the behaviour.) Yes, it is correct but *only if* you limit to what the C standard says, but like you and others have said, if the implementation cares about the issue, and provides some kind of defined behavior, then my previous understanding was wrong. In other words, I did not know that the implementations can "override" UB (i.e. UB according to C stardard) and turn it into Implementation Defined behavior. That kind of ignorance is not something to be proud of. br, KK
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-15 20:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u8uo0p$evvo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170795 |
On 15/07/2023 19:28, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> On 15/07/2023 14:55, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote: >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>> So extensions to C are undefined behaviour in respect to the C standard, >>>> but defined behaviour in respect to the implementation. As far as the >>>> standard is concerned, and therefore for the C language in general, >>>> signed integer overflow is undefined behaviour. However, if you are >>>> coding for "gcc -fwrapv", then the behaviour is fully defined by the >>>> implementation. >>> >>> Right, and that is precisely what I did not realize before. My >>> simplistic "understanding" was that UB is always something that >>> will produce results that are, well, not guaranteed to be one >>> way or the other. >> >> That definition is correct. The only question is about where the >> guarantees come from. The C standard may not guarantee what happens if >> you try to dereference a null pointer, but perhaps the OS you are >> running on does - then it is UB as far as the C standard is concerned, >> but not UB for your target platform. (A compiler for that OS may still >> view it as UB for error checking and/or optimisation purposes even if >> the OS defines the behaviour.) > > Yes, it is correct but *only if* you limit to what the C > standard says, No - you are missing the point. If you are using "undefined behaviour" in the strict sense of the C standards, then anything not defined by the C standards is UB, and if you try to execute code that has UB, the standards do not give you any guarantees about what might happen. If you are using the term in a more general sense and considering behaviours defined and guaranteed by the implementation, target, or other documents, then you can safely and confidently execute code that is defined by the implementation even if it is not defined by the C standards. But anything whose behaviour is not defined by the implementation and relevant documents, has no guarantee about its behaviour. It's the same thing - it is merely a question of how specific and detailed you want to be, and how restrictive you can be about the choice of compiler and implementation. > but like you and others have said, if the > implementation cares about the issue, (Note this is not an "issue" to care about - UB in a language is a good thing, as long as you understand it and avoid trying to execute it. Many languages gloss over UB and pretend they define everything, but they don't - and often they give pointless and counter-productive definitions to meaningless code simply so that they can claim to have no UB. UB is really just "garbage in, garbage out".) > and provides some > kind of defined behavior, then my previous understanding > was wrong. > > In other words, I did not know that the implementations > can "override" UB (i.e. UB according to C stardard) and > turn it into Implementation Defined behavior. > They can't turn it into "implementation-defined behaviour" - that has a specific meaning in C terms. It means behaviour that the C standards say can vary between implementations, but which the implementation must document. Examples include the size of "int" and the character sets. But anything that the C standard does not define, can be defined by an implementation - the C standards say nothing about such things and do not require them to be "wrong". (This is different from things like "constraints" and syntax errors - compilers are obliged to follow these in conforming modes. So a conforming compiler cannot have a "long long long int" type, or implement a "%" operator on string literals. It can do so in non-conforming modes, of course, where the compiler is free to do anything it likes.) > That kind of ignorance is not something to be proud of. > Ignorance is seldom something to be proud of - but it is not something to be ashamed of either. You fix it by learning. And they say the quickest way to get good answers on the internet is not to ask questions, but to post the wrong answers - it has worked for me on many occasions!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-15 18:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u8upba$f3n1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170796 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > They can't turn it into "implementation-defined behaviour" - that has a > specific meaning in C terms. It means behaviour that the C standards > say can vary between implementations, but which the implementation must > document. Examples include the size of "int" and the character sets. Thanks, yes, I used the wrong term. > But anything that the C standard does not define, can be defined by an > implementation - I guess there is no existing term for that. > Ignorance is seldom something to be proud of - but it is not something > to be ashamed of either. You fix it by learning. And they say the > quickest way to get good answers on the internet is not to ask > questions, but to post the wrong answers - it has worked for me on many > occasions! That is true, but it is also the responsibility of all C programmers to know the fundamental principles governing how to use the C language properly. I can tell you that it is not a great feeling to realize that you have misunderstood something pretty fundamental for several years. br, KK
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-22 06:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86bkg4ukic.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #170795 |
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes: > In other words, I did not know that the implementations > can "override" UB (i.e. UB according to C stardard) and > turn it into Implementation Defined behavior. The phrasing here is somewhat incorrect. Undefined behavior is a specification, not a state of being. If a particular construct is specified in the C standard as being undefined behavior, it is still undefined behavior even if there is an extension (documented by an implementation of interest) that gives the construct a well-defined semantics in that implementation. Similarly, implementation-defined behavior is a specification, not a state of being. Any constructs stated in the C standard to have ID behavior are always implementation defined, but no others are, and there is nothing an implementation can do to change that. I suggest using "implementation specific", a term not defined by the C standard, to refer to behavior that a given implementation specifies but is not (or might not be) implementation defined. > That kind of ignorance is not something to be proud of. Neither is it something to be ashamed of. We were all beginners once, even with a long history of programming experience. I didn't take an active interest in the ISO C standard for a decade or so after it was first ratified, because it wasn't relevant to what I was doing at the time. Moreover the terminology used in the C standard is rather unintuitive, or even counter-intuitive, in some cases, so some level of misunderstanding isn't surprising.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-15 14:12 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <s0dttu5ln36.fsf@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #170745 |
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes: > Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> wrote: >> kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes: >> >>> No. Lots of C programs are quite portable. That includes e.g. Linux >>> kernel, BSD kernels, PostgreSQL, Apache, Postfix, and many, >>> many other Unix daemons. PostgreSQL runs not only on Unix >>> but even on Windows. Possibly OpenLDAP does, too. >> >> Yet none of these programs strictly conform to a Standard. They are >> more or less conforming programs, meaning that they are acceptable >> to >> the C implementations that they have been ported to. > > You could well be right. But invoking UB is something so evil > that no C or C++ program must ever do it, meaning that the > programmers must know enough to avoid it. > > Since you seem to be confident about your claim, is it possible > for you to describe what aspects of Postfix are non-corforming > C code? Not strictly conforming? Easy: any code that assumes char is 8 bits wide, or that int can hold values larger than 32766. > Speaking of MTAs, Sendmail was/is portable enough so that it runs > on practically every modern and not-so-modern UNIX. This being > the case, one could assume that its C code must be very > standards compliant, no? What do you think? What exactly is ``standards compliance''? Mere conformance, or strict conformance?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-15 01:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <871qh9zjke.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #170779 |
Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:
> kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
>> Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
>>>> No. Lots of C programs are quite portable. That includes e.g. Linux
>>>> kernel, BSD kernels, PostgreSQL, Apache, Postfix, and many,
>>>> many other Unix daemons. PostgreSQL runs not only on Unix
>>>> but even on Windows. Possibly OpenLDAP does, too.
>>>
>>> Yet none of these programs strictly conform to a Standard. They are
>>> more or less conforming programs, meaning that they are acceptable
>>> to
>>> the C implementations that they have been ported to.
>>
>> You could well be right. But invoking UB is something so evil
>> that no C or C++ program must ever do it, meaning that the
>> programmers must know enough to avoid it.
>>
>> Since you seem to be confident about your claim, is it possible
>> for you to describe what aspects of Postfix are non-corforming
>> C code?
>
> Not strictly conforming? Easy: any code that assumes char is 8 bits
> wide, or that int can hold values larger than 32766.
32767.
Or any code whose behavior depends on those things. For example, this:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <limits.h>
int main(void) {
printf("%d\n", INT_MAX);
}
is in a sense 100% portable to any hosted implementation, but it's not
strictly conforming.
>> Speaking of MTAs, Sendmail was/is portable enough so that it runs
>> on practically every modern and not-so-modern UNIX. This being
>> the case, one could assume that its C code must be very
>> standards compliant, no? What do you think?
>
> What exactly is ``standards compliance''?
> Mere conformance, or strict conformance?
A "conforming program" is one that is acceptable to a conforming
implementation -- an almost absurdly weak condition. If there's a C
implementation that accepts Fortran programs as an extension (after
issuing any required diagnostic), then a Forgran program is a
"conforming program", though I doubt that the authors meant the
definition to be quite that loose.
But I think there's an intermediate level of conformance: a "correct
program".
A program that is correct in all other aspects, operating on correct
data, containing unspecified behavior shall be a correct program and
act in accordance with 5.1.2.3.
(This in section 4 of the ISO C standard.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-20 18:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86jzuuvxk2.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #170780 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
> Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
>>
>>> Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> No. Lots of C programs are quite portable. That includes e.g. Linux
>>>>> kernel, BSD kernels, PostgreSQL, Apache, Postfix, and many,
>>>>> many other Unix daemons. PostgreSQL runs not only on Unix
>>>>> but even on Windows. Possibly OpenLDAP does, too.
>>>>
>>>> Yet none of these programs strictly conform to a Standard. They are
>>>> more or less conforming programs, meaning that they are acceptable
>>>> to
>>>> the C implementations that they have been ported to.
>>>
>>> You could well be right. But invoking UB is something so evil
>>> that no C or C++ program must ever do it, meaning that the
>>> programmers must know enough to avoid it.
>>>
>>> Since you seem to be confident about your claim, is it possible
>>> for you to describe what aspects of Postfix are non-corforming
>>> C code?
>>
>> Not strictly conforming? Easy: any code that assumes char is 8 bits
>> wide, or that int can hold values larger than 32766.
>
> 32767.
>
> Or any code whose behavior depends on those things. For example, this:
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <limits.h>
> int main(void) {
> printf("%d\n", INT_MAX);
> }
>
> is in a sense 100% portable to any hosted implementation, but it's not
> strictly conforming.
>
>>> Speaking of MTAs, Sendmail was/is portable enough so that it runs
>>> on practically every modern and not-so-modern UNIX. This being
>>> the case, one could assume that its C code must be very
>>> standards compliant, no? What do you think?
>>
>> What exactly is ``standards compliance''?
>> Mere conformance, or strict conformance?
>
> A "conforming program" is one that is acceptable to a conforming
> implementation -- an almost absurdly weak condition. If there's a C
> implementation that accepts Fortran programs as an extension (after
> issuing any required diagnostic), then a Forgran program is a
> "conforming program", though I doubt that the authors meant the
> definition to be quite that loose.
>
> But I think there's an intermediate level of conformance: a "correct
> program".
>
> A program that is correct in all other aspects, operating on correct
> data, containing unspecified behavior shall be a correct program and
> act in accordance with 5.1.2.3.
>
> (This in section 4 of the ISO C standard.)
Note that a "correct program" can include programs that depend on
unspecified behavior, and on implementation-defined behavior, and
on implementation-specific extensions covering particular cases
of undefined behavior. There is nothing "incorrect" about
depending on extensions that cover areas of undefined behavior.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-15 08:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u8tn5n$blno$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170779 |
Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> wrote: > Not strictly conforming? Easy: any code that assumes > char is 8 bits wide, or that int can hold values > larger than 32766. Thanks, I see. I am pretty sure that the latter is what most programs do. >> Speaking of MTAs, Sendmail was/is portable enough so that it runs >> on practically every modern and not-so-modern UNIX. This being >> the case, one could assume that its C code must be very >> standards compliant, no? What do you think? > > What exactly is ``standards compliance''? > Mere conformance, or strict conformance? The "strict conformance" seems unattainable. br, KK
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-17 02:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u92mub$12sng$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170745 |
On 7/14/23 09:16, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote: .... > You could well be right. But invoking UB is something so evil that no > C or C++ program must ever do it, meaning that the > programmers must know enough to avoid it. I've unfortunately had no time to post a response since shortly before you sent that message. In the time since then, you've been fully informed about what's wrong with that statement, and acknowledged it. Despite that fact, I'd still like to post my own response. The standard defines the term "undefined behavior" as "behavior, upon use of a nonportable or erroneous program construct or of erroneous data, for which this document imposes no requirements". That definition contains two important phrases that are often misunderstood. The most important is "no requirements" - many people seem to think that UB means that the program must fail immediately and catastrophically. In reality, one of the most dangerous ways UB manifests is as your program doing precisely what you incorrectly assumed it was required to do. What makes this possibility dangerous is that you don't find out, not even by careful testing, that your code is incorrect. You won't find out until you port your code to a different system where the actual behavior is different. Another very common form of UB is to do something subtly different from what you intended it to do, so subtly that you won't notice that it is different unless you do very careful testing. You won't find out until you need to make a major presentation to a client. You don't seem to be suffering from that misconception, you seem properly scared of UB. The other tricky phrase is "this document". That's referring to the C standard. Other documents might impose requirements, but as far as the C standard is concerned, the code has undefined behavior. That was the thing you apparently didn't realize, but I gather you're fully aware of that now. Something that I don't think has been properly discussed is the connection between UB and conforming extensions to C. A fully conforming implementation of C can provide extensions, either conforming or non-conforming, that generally add features to the C language. A conforming implementation can add features that radically change the behavior of your code, so long as those features necessarily involve code that renders the behavior undefined. The fact that the behavior is undefined allows the implementation to define the behavior to be whatever it wants, in order to implement the extension. The most common way to do this is to make the feature depend upon the use of a keyword whose name makes it a reserved identifier. For instance, any identifier that starts with "_" followed by a capital letter is reserved, so for example, a _OnesComplement keyword could be used to define an integer type that uses one's complement representation. Until quite recently, it was allowed for an implementation to specify that a particular type used that representation, but standard C has never provided a way of specifying that this be the case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 20:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20230714083843.644@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #170722 |
On 2023-07-14, Kalevi Kolttonen <kalevi@kolttonen.fi> wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> On 13/07/2023 21:30, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote: >> So the answer is to do constant battle with the Rust Borrow Checker? > > I make no recommendations. I just observed the fact that > in order to write safe C code, you need considerable amount > of knowledge about the C standards in order to avoid the > pitfalls. The vast majority of it is common sense, like don't try to calculate out-of-range numbers, or fit out of range numbers into a smaller type. What's hard in C is writing a large body of code in which you don't make any accidental mistakes which are obvious if pointed out by someone else (rather than something you don't know). Then there is the difficulty of all that manual memory management, and also explicit concurrency, if you're required to use those.) Separately from that, what is hard is defending against external inputs, where it is obvious that there are combinatiosn of inputs that will cause the program's operations to violate the rules. For instance, it's quite clumsy to check something as simple as whether two numbers can be added without overflow in C. Whereas in some assembly languages, we can just try it and check a flag. Done. that. The result is that it's easy to code happy paths in C, and to "document away" bad inputs as being the caller's or user's problem. For instance, it's very easy to write a language interpreter in C, if it's okay for that interpreter to inherit undefined behaviors of C. (But it usually isn't.) If we look at the POSIX specification for Awk, it basically waves its hands in the area of numeric safety. Unless noted otherwise, Awk expressions just follow C. Situations like division by zero or overflow are therefore undefined behavior in Awk. If you're writing an Awk implementation in C, in order to be conforming to POSIX in the area of arithmetic, you don't have to do anything special. Your + operator can just pull out some numbers out of the operand nodes, and blindly hand them down to the C + operator without any checks. The problem has been punted to the programmer writing the Awk script. This is the sort of thing that Rust is striking at: to be able to write programs with happy paths in which there is implicit safety for the unhappy inputs. Problem is we already have plenty of languages which do that, that are nice to program in and efficient. That's why Rust needs this marketing positioning as a C and C++ replacement. It's not a compelling replacement for anything managed, especially if it has a decent compiler. You will not convince users of managed languages that it's bad to be able to send an object anywhere in a program, and have multiple references to it. I don't believe there is a large application area where problems are so simple that some primitive single-owner memory management is good enough, yet we cannot use a nice garbage collected language. And even in that area, we have to consider the alternative of using two languages: a nice managed language, with small amount of C (that's easy to develop and get right). -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 43 of 49 — ← Prev page 1 … 41 42 [43] 44 45 … 49 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web