Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #386767 > unrolled thread
| Started by | aotto1968 <aotto1968@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-07-04 17:16 +0200 |
| Last post | 2024-07-07 20:29 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 312 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? aotto1968 <aotto1968@t-online.de> - 2024-07-04 17:16 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-05 01:05 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 02:30 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-05 07:52 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2024-07-05 09:12 +0042
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 01:09 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-05 08:25 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 04:19 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-05 12:20 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 08:28 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-05 23:40 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 22:30 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-06 19:01 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 13:47 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-06 23:41 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 16:42 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-06 20:04 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 23:28 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-07 12:35 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-07 14:57 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 11:23 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 13:46 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-06 20:15 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 17:01 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-06 02:24 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 01:39 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 11:46 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-06 07:23 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 03:51 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 04:23 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-06 14:26 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 14:33 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-09 16:37 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-09 18:54 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-09 20:03 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 13:23 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 15:38 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 23:55 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-07 10:03 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-07 15:10 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-07 19:22 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-08 00:02 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-08 12:39 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-09 16:31 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-09 15:54 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-09 16:58 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-09 17:29 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-09 18:22 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 14:14 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-10 00:15 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 19:08 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-09 21:28 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-09 14:23 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-10 00:35 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-10 13:51 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-10 14:32 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-07-10 11:26 -0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-10 15:49 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-10 17:09 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-10 08:48 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-10 20:14 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-10 21:28 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-11 11:13 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-11 08:41 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-11 12:15 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-11 10:02 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-11 11:17 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-11 12:20 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-11 11:56 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-10 22:49 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-11 07:02 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-11 15:19 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-11 14:29 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-11 16:42 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-10 18:30 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-10 21:39 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-10 20:04 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-11 11:31 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-11 04:49 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-11 14:00 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-11 06:26 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-11 15:04 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-11 11:53 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-11 20:56 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-11 13:29 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-11 21:36 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-12 07:53 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-12 12:03 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-12 13:51 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-12 14:36 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-12 19:13 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-12 19:32 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-13 11:46 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-13 11:37 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-17 14:42 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-17 19:31 +0200
Re: Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-07-17 18:49 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 08:46 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-12 12:46 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-12 19:39 +0100
Re: Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-07-12 14:17 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 13:50 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-11 21:37 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-11 14:00 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-12 07:54 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-12 13:44 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-12 14:59 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-13 04:39 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 21:04 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-13 11:46 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-13 18:44 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 08:51 -0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-10 13:26 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-10 18:29 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-11 04:28 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-10 11:54 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-10 17:48 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-11 00:01 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-11 01:21 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-11 02:29 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-10 18:36 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-11 11:54 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-11 11:04 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-11 13:25 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-11 12:41 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-11 12:22 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-11 17:58 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-11 18:25 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-11 11:27 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-12 08:00 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-12 13:12 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-12 12:21 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-12 12:14 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 09:54 -0700
Re: technology discussion ? does the world need a "new" C ? dave_thompson_2@comcast.net - 2024-08-25 17:16 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-01 18:09 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-01 19:01 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-09-02 12:10 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-02 15:18 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-08 06:04 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-15 23:56 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-16 03:37 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-16 18:15 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-17 06:15 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-17 19:07 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-17 12:52 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-26 09:37 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 21:28 -0700
Wording discussion (was Re: technology discussion) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-27 14:21 +0200
Re: Wording discussion (was Re: technology discussion) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-27 14:09 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-27 14:03 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-28 00:26 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-28 06:43 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-10-29 08:07 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-09-16 22:41 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-12 15:22 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 08:58 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-12 19:33 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 13:38 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-17 16:42 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-12 11:52 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-12 15:35 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-12 15:42 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-12 15:07 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-12 16:31 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-13 04:49 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-12 15:44 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-13 12:13 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-13 02:01 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 04:39 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-13 12:35 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-13 14:43 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-17 12:38 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-17 16:34 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-17 16:56 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-15 01:43 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-15 13:48 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-15 15:33 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-15 17:08 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-16 01:08 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-16 12:10 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-16 02:18 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-16 12:38 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-16 12:28 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-16 11:40 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-16 11:17 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-16 11:42 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-16 11:00 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-16 16:31 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-19 00:54 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-18 18:03 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-19 09:26 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-19 12:22 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-19 14:14 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-19 21:18 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-16 10:56 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-17 12:26 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-17 11:38 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-16 15:19 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-17 07:41 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-17 18:07 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-17 18:22 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-18 12:35 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-19 01:01 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-19 01:57 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-19 02:30 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-19 12:29 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-20 00:33 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-20 12:42 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-16 10:04 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-16 12:45 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-16 16:51 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-15 14:36 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-15 23:22 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-15 23:29 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-16 01:46 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-15 18:21 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2024-08-16 03:37 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-16 12:14 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-15 14:52 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-17 19:07 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-17 12:53 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-18 09:46 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-18 05:05 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-18 14:41 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-18 14:00 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-18 18:01 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-18 14:25 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-07-18 22:23 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-18 12:40 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-13 13:35 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-17 01:09 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-12 07:34 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-11 04:35 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-10 16:54 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-10 16:40 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-10 21:46 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-10 13:47 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-10 22:40 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-10 16:00 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-12 13:38 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-09 22:32 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-10 00:04 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 16:50 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-10 01:38 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 18:18 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-10 11:12 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-10 13:05 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-10 03:19 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-09 18:31 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 13:05 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-09 18:39 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-07-09 16:20 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 13:55 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-09 16:22 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 16:43 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-10 09:41 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-10 12:59 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-10 21:52 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-07 22:10 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-08 00:28 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-08 10:53 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-08 19:01 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-10 04:29 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 21:56 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-10 01:22 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-10 06:05 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-06 14:28 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-06 19:53 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-10 04:27 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-10 02:38 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-10 10:58 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-12 15:36 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 15:45 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-06 21:18 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 18:35 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 15:23 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-10 05:55 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-10 03:07 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-10 02:52 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-10 11:27 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-10 14:23 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-06 05:42 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-05 14:31 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 10:48 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-06 01:38 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 19:00 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-06 04:36 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-06 07:25 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-06 23:24 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 15:55 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-06 21:34 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-10 00:57 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-10 03:16 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-11 02:51 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-11 12:46 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-07-11 13:57 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-11 14:50 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-07-11 12:44 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 12:17 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-11 12:09 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-06 20:15 -0700
Re: technology discussion ? does the world need a "new" C ? dave_thompson_2@comcast.net - 2024-08-25 16:59 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-06 04:29 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-06 01:46 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-06 10:21 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 16:04 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-07 01:36 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 18:39 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? lexi hale <lexi@hale.su> - 2024-07-05 21:54 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-07-07 06:35 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? aotto1968 <aotto1968@t-online.de> - 2024-07-07 20:29 +0200
Page 6 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 16 Next page →
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 14:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <_VakO.418$6ZU4.307@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #387076 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> Why isn't it C? > >Are you trying to blame us for how C is defined? Will you guys just stop responding rather than argue endlessly useless threads with Bart, which stopped being entertaining years ago?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 13:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v6rtuh$359n7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #387099 |
On 7/12/2024 9:17 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > >>> Why isn't it C? >> >> Are you trying to blame us for how C is defined? > > Will you guys just stop responding rather than argue endlessly useless > threads with Bart, which stopped being entertaining years ago? Agreed. All this has ceased being technically relevant, and has more just turned into arguing semantics, or argument for sake of argument...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-11 21:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <v6pfqj$2jijk$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #387070 |
On 11/07/2024 21:29, Keith Thompson wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 11/07/2024 19:53, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> [...] >>>> For that purpose, in the mind of the user, it does the same job as 'by >>>> by reference'. That it does so by some other quirks (array decay, and >>>> the ability to index pointers as thought they were arrays), is by the >>>> by. >>> [...] >>> Those "quirks" are a rich source of confusion and bugs for anyone >>> who >>> doesn't understand how this stuff is actually defined. (Yes, I'm >>> acknowledging, yet again, that the way C specifies its treatment of >>> arrays is confusing.) >>> A user who thinks that arrays are simply "passed by reference" is >>> likely >>> to try to apply sizeof to an array parameter (and might or might not get >>> a diagnostic from the compiler). A slightly more sophisticated user is >>> still likely to be unsure of just where the "quirks" are. >>> What have you ever done to help make that kind of error less likely? >>> What is your goal? >> >> >> This my first comment on the subject: >> >> "Arrays are passed by reference: >> ... >> Although ..." > > And that statement was incorrect, even with the "Although". So arrays are passed by value? Gotcha.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-11 14:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <878qy7tzhx.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #387072 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> So arrays are passed by value? Gotcha.
No.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 07:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v6qge3$2t6p7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #387072 |
On 11/07/2024 22:37, bart wrote: > On 11/07/2024 21:29, Keith Thompson wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> This my first comment on the subject: >>> >>> "Arrays are passed by reference: >>> ... >>> Although ..." >> >> And that statement was incorrect, even with the "Although". > > So arrays are passed by value? Gotcha. > False dichotomy - and you know that. Arrays are not passed at all in C. Try writing that out on a post-it and attach it to your screen, so that you will re-read it before every post you make.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 13:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v6r4um$30q95$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #387072 |
On 11.07.2024 22:37, bart wrote: > On 11/07/2024 21:29, Keith Thompson wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> >>> This my first comment on the subject: >>> >>> "Arrays are passed by reference: >>> ... >>> Although ..." >> >> And that statement was incorrect, even with the "Although". > > So arrays are passed by value? Gotcha. Neither is true. - Tertium datur! "Array passing" is in "C" realized using a pointer passing mechanism where the pointer is passed "by value". Neither an array is passed [by value] nor there's a "call by reference" mechanism in "C". This has been explained (also with references to original sources) to you many times. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 14:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <v6rcr5$320pj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #387084 |
On 12/07/2024 12:44, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 11.07.2024 22:37, bart wrote: >> On 11/07/2024 21:29, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> >>>> This my first comment on the subject: >>>> >>>> "Arrays are passed by reference: >>>> ... >>>> Although ..." >>> >>> And that statement was incorrect, even with the "Although". >> >> So arrays are passed by value? Gotcha. > > Neither is true. - Tertium datur! > > "Array passing" is in "C" realized using a pointer passing > mechanism where the pointer is passed "by value". > > Neither an array is passed [by value] nor there's a "call > by reference" mechanism in "C". So how are the elements of the caller's array accessed? No copies have been supplied to the caller. So access is by ... ? Look, there are only two choices: 'pointer' and 'reference', which in C are more or less the same thing: "6.2.5p20 ... A pointer type describes an object whose value provides a reference to an entity of the referenced type." So I said 'arrays are passed by reference'; maybe I should have said 'array elements are passed by reference' (which suggests that each has its own reference), so shoot me. But everyone was so keen to prove me wrong and incapable of understanding. > This has been explained (also with references to original > sources) to you many times. Could you be a bit more patronising, please?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-13 04:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v6spc7$3dlhs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #387098 |
On 12.07.2024 15:59, bart wrote:
> On 12/07/2024 12:44, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 11.07.2024 22:37, bart wrote:
>>> On 11/07/2024 21:29, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> This my first comment on the subject:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Arrays are passed by reference:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Although ..."
>>>>
>>>> And that statement was incorrect, even with the "Although".
>>>
>>> So arrays are passed by value? Gotcha.
>>
>> Neither is true. - Tertium datur!
>>
>> "Array passing" is in "C" realized using a pointer passing
>> mechanism where the pointer is passed "by value".
>>
>> Neither an array is passed [by value] nor there's a "call
>> by reference" mechanism in "C".
>
> So how are the elements of the caller's array accessed?
>
> No copies have been supplied to the caller. So access is by ... ?
...by an implicit pointer value dereferentiation and a global
access to the pointed to storage area.
>
> Look, there are only two choices: 'pointer' and 'reference', which in C
> are more or less the same thing:
You can create a pointer value using a reference operator '&'.
>
> "6.2.5p20 ... A pointer type describes an object whose value provides a
> reference to an entity of the referenced type."
It doesn't say anything about a call-by-reference [mechanism]
(as it's for example provided in C++ with f(int & a) ).
>
> So I said 'arrays are passed by reference'; maybe I should have said
> 'array elements are passed by reference' (which suggests that each has
> its own reference), so shoot me.
>
> But everyone was so keen to prove me wrong and incapable of understanding.
I think it was (one of) my first post(s) in this thread where
I speculated whether you might use that term just informally.
It seems that my guess was correct, and it would have helped
if you'd have confirmed this (or any of the details you left
unanswered to other posters to show where discrepancies still
are and where consensus has been achieved).
As an end point to the discussion (just for some recreational
reading) I suggest "The Development of the C Language" by D.
Ritchie. It's a honest paper, and contains a Critique section
which incidentally starts by:
"Two ideas are most characteristic of C among languages of
its class: the relationship between arrays and pointers,
and the way in which declaration syntax mimics expression
syntax. They are also among its most frequently criticized
features, and often serve as stumbling blocks to the beginner.
[...]
For example, the empty square brackets in the function
declaration int f(a) int a[]; { ... } are a living fossil,
a remnant of NB’s way of declaring a pointer; a is, in this
special case only, interpreted in C as a pointer."
Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 21:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87cynirl7d.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #387122 |
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
> On 12.07.2024 15:59, bart wrote:
[...]
>> So how are the elements of the caller's array accessed?
>>
>> No copies have been supplied to the caller. So access is by ... ?
>
> ...by an implicit pointer value dereferentiation and a global
> access to the pointed to storage area.
A small quibble: I suggest "indirect" would be clearer than "global".
For example, a function can define a local array object and use
its name as an argument in a call to another function.
[...]
> As an end point to the discussion (just for some recreational
> reading) I suggest "The Development of the C Language" by D.
> Ritchie.
Available at <https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/chist.pdf>.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-13 11:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v6tidr$3hj4d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #387124 |
On 13.07.2024 06:04, Keith Thompson wrote: > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: >> On 12.07.2024 15:59, bart wrote: > [...] >>> So how are the elements of the caller's array accessed? >>> >>> No copies have been supplied to the caller. So access is by ... ? >> >> ...by an implicit pointer value dereferentiation and a global >> access to the pointed to storage area. > > A small quibble: I suggest "indirect" would be clearer than "global". I used the term "indirection" before a an abstract description of the common superset of the function that "references" and "pointers" provide. But, yes. Global is not a good word. (It itches me as well.) Here I wanted to include (in a subtle way) another aspect (that had already been mentioned before by others, granted); that the change through indirection is not bound to some sort of "local" parameter object (an array passed as parameter by value), but as pointer may point just to (and manipulate) any "global" data. > > For example, a function can define a local array object and use > its name as an argument in a call to another function. > > [...] > >> As an end point to the discussion (just for some recreational >> reading) I suggest "The Development of the C Language" by D. >> Ritchie. > > Available at <https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/chist.pdf>. Thanks for the link. (I had only a local copy of it.) Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-13 18:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8634oc7nnf.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #387098 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 12/07/2024 12:44, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > >> On 11.07.2024 22:37, bart wrote: >> >>> On 11/07/2024 21:29, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> >>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> This my first comment on the subject: >>>>> >>>>> "Arrays are passed by reference: >>>>> ... >>>>> Although ..." >>>> >>>> And that statement was incorrect, even with the "Although". >>> >>> So arrays are passed by value? Gotcha. >> >> Neither is true. - Tertium datur! >> >> "Array passing" is in "C" realized using a pointer passing >> mechanism where the pointer is passed "by value". >> >> Neither an array is passed [by value] nor there's a "call >> by reference" mechanism in "C". > > So how are the elements of the caller's array accessed? That is irrelevant to the question because array elements are not arguments to the function.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 08:51 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <v6r5bi$30q5c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #387068 |
On 11/07/2024 16:56, bart wrote:
> The language could have helped a little by making this invalid:
>
> int A[20];
>
> void F(int B[20]) {}
The declaration does not correspond of the real type because there is no
type to represent that.
In cake, I am thinking in create the type "pointer to the first element
of N".
Then, if this was created in the past the syntax could be:
int A[20];
void F(int *.[20] B)
{
}
But nowadays we don't need to change the current syntax for parameters,
just leave as it is.
The syntax "pointer to the first element of N" can be used in other
situations.
In cake, I have a warning if you use B as pointer, for instance:
int A[20];
void F(int B[20]) {
B = 0; //warning
}
If the user wants to do that he can change the declaration to int *B.
But now the size is lost. The type "pointer to the first element of N"
fixes that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-10 13:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87sewhuh7c.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #387010 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
[...]
> It does not count, because automatic conversion to a pointer is not
> something that happens only during parameter passing. For arrays, it
> happens in all contexts except sizeof(). For functions, it happens in
> all contexts except function call. Or, may be, including function call,
> in this case (but not in case of arrays) it depends on point of view.
The rules are stated in section 6.3.2.1 (same subsection number in
N1570/C11 and N3220/C23).
Array expressions "decay" to pointers in all contexts except:
- The operand of "sizeof"
- The operand of unary "&"
- The operand of a typeof operator (introduced in C23)
- A string literal used to initialize an array
A function designator (an expression of function type) decays to a
pointer in all contexts except:
- The operand of "sizeof" (`sizeof func` is a constraint violation)
- The operand of a typeof operator (introduced in C23)
- The operand of unary "&"
The prefix of a function call is required to be of
pointer-to-function type.
C *could* have required the prefix of a function call to be of
function type. It would have had to add another context to the
rules for function designator decay, plus a rule that an expression
of pointer-to-function type is implicitly dereferenced if it's the
prefix of a function call. Unless I'm missing something (which is
always possible), this would have made no effective difference to
the syntax or semantics of the language. But it's consistently
defined the way it is, and if we're going to get into the fine
details I think it's important to understand the rules.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-10 18:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v6n1vi$239h6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #387010 |
On 7/10/24 14:39, Michael S wrote: ... > ... For functions, it happens in > all contexts except function call. Or, may be, including function call, Actually, it is the latter. In a function call expression: "The expression that denotes the called function104) shall have type pointer to function ..." (6.5.2.2p1). Conveniently, "A function designator is an expression that has function type. Except when it is the operand of the sizeof operator69) , a typeof operator, or the unary & operator, a function designator with type "function returning type" is converted to an expression that has type "pointer to function returning type"." (6.3.2.1p4). In K&R C, the function designator had to have a function type, and there was no implicit conversion to a pointer, but both of those things were changed when the language was first standardized.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-11 04:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86ed8088xe.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #387008 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 10/07/2024 16:48, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>> I earlier asked this: >>> >>> "So if arrays aren't passed by value in C, and they aren't passed >>> by reference, then how the hell ARE they passed?!" >> >> They aren't. C allows lots of things to be passed as an argument >> to a function: several varieties of numeric values, structs, >> unions, and pointers, including both pointers to object types and >> pointers to function types. C does not have a way for a function >> to take an argument that is either an array or a function. There >> is a way to take pointers to those things, but not the things >> themselves. Arrays and functions are second-class values in C. > > That's a good point. It's not just arrays that can't be passed by > value (because the language says so) but also functions (because its > not meaningful). > > Yet, although pointers to arrays and function can be passed (without > even doing anything special like using &), you are not allowed to say > that anything is passed by reference in C! My comment is not about what people are allowed to say. It's about what is true. The truth is, in C, all function arguments are passed by value. That statement doesn't depend on how anyone thinks about it or what they call it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-10 11:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v6mas4$1v1rh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #386997 |
On 10.07.2024 16:49, bart wrote: ... > "So if arrays aren't passed by value in C, and they aren't passed by > reference, then how the hell ARE they passed?!" The problem with that question is the same as the problem with the question "How are Justices of the US Supreme Court elected?". They aren't elected, so the question cannot be answered. Arrays cannot be passed in C, so the question of how they are passed also cannot be answered. You can pass a pointer to the start of an array or a pointer to the whole array; either way, the pointer is passed by value. You could also pass a struct containing an array; that struct is passed by value.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-10 17:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <v6me1p$205a8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #387005 |
On 10/07/2024 16:54, James Kuyper wrote: > On 10.07.2024 16:49, bart wrote: > ... >> "So if arrays aren't passed by value in C, and they aren't passed by >> reference, then how the hell ARE they passed?!" > > The problem with that question is the same as the problem with the > question "How are Justices of the US Supreme Court elected?". They > aren't elected, so the question cannot be answered. Arrays cannot be > passed in C, so the question of how they are passed also cannot be answered. > > You can pass a pointer to the start of an array or a pointer to the > whole array; either way, How is that interestingly different from pass-by-reference? Which as you know involves a pointer to the value of an object, so the values are not passed, only the value of the pointer. (You may also know that every language will use pass-by-value for everything if you delve deeply enough.) In C, if you have this char[4] array at this address: 01003F8 65 66 67 00 and try to pass it to a function defined with a char[4] argument, it will end up passing the address 01003F8. If I pass the same array in a similar language but using explicit pass-by-reference, it will also pass the address 01003F8. So, if you were to examine the machine code of such a program which was generated from one of those two languages, could you tell whether it was from the one with true pass-by-reference, or from C which only has pass-by-value?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-11 00:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87ikxconq4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #386997 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 10/07/2024 14:32, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 10/07/2024 00:35, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 09/07/2024 18:22, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 09/07/2024 16:58, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Arrays are passed by reference:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void F(int a[20]) {}
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int main(void) {
>>>>>>>>> int x[20];
>>>>>>>>> F(x);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> This is the sort of thing that bad tutors say to students so that they
>>>>>>>> never learn C properly. All parameter passing in C is by value. All of
>>>>>>>> it. You just have to know (a) what the syntax means and (b) what values
>>>>>>>> get passed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The end result is that a parameter declared with value-array syntax is
>>>>>>> passed using a reference rather than by value.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And it does so because the language says, not because the ABI requires
>>>>>>> it. A 2-byte array is also passed by reference.
>>>>>> An address value is passed by value. C has only one parameter passing
>>>>>> mechanism. You can spin it as much as you like, but C's parameter
>>>>>> passing is simple to understand, provided learner tune out voices like
>>>>>> yours.
>>>>>
>>>>> Little about C's type system is simple.
>>>> Parameter passing is relatively simple though since there is only one
>>>> mechanism -- pass by value.
>>>
>>> Except when it comes to arrays.
>> The oddity is that, in C, one can't pass arrays to functions at all.
>> That is one of the quirks that people learning C need to learn. It does
>> not alter the fact that there is only parameter passing mechanism -- by
>> value.
>> Your plan, of course, is to take that one place where C is relatively
>> simple
>
> It is not that simple. It is confusing. It is error prone.
It is simple but you can certainly confuse people by lying about it. I
agree that it's error prone. That's why making sure your
misrepresentation is corrected is so important.
> I earlier asked this:
>
> "So if arrays aren't passed by value in C, and they aren't passed by
> reference, then how the hell ARE they passed?!"
And I answered that.
> I haven't had a reply yet.
Yes you have. You have even quoted me on the subject in this very
message: "in C, one can't pass arrays to functions at all".
> I still consider arrays in C to be 'passed' by a
> mechanism which is near-indistinguishable from actual
> pass-by-reference.
I don't really care how you consider it, but I do care about how you
misrepresent the facts in public.
In another post you said that your language has pass by reference, and
we also know you have implemented C. Either you are just very confused
and your language simply has call by value (after all, you think C has
pass by reference), or you know that pass by reference in your language
needs something from the implementation that was not needed when you
implemented C. I can't decide if you are confused or just lying.
> If somebody had proposed adding pass-by-reference for arrays, you'd say C
> doesn't need it, because whatever benefits it might have you, C already
> has!
I see you are running out of statements to argue against so you have
started to make up your own. I am sure you have thoroughly refuted this
made up person in your head.
Anyone proposing adding pass-by-reference for arrays would be told (by
me at last) to start by allowing arrays to be passed by value first.
Why anyone would propose adding pass by reference for a type that can't
be currently be passed at all is a mystery that only you (as the
inventor of this person) can know.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-11 01:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <v6n8iu$24af0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #387027 |
On 11/07/2024 00:01, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>> On 10/07/2024 14:32, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> I still consider arrays in C to be 'passed' by a
>> mechanism which is near-indistinguishable from actual
>> pass-by-reference.
>
> I don't really care how you consider it, but I do care about how you
> misrepresent the facts in public.
>
> In another post you said that your language has pass by reference, and
> we also know you have implemented C. Either you are just very confused
> and your language simply has call by value (after all, you think C has
> pass by reference), or you know that pass by reference in your language
> needs something from the implementation that was not needed when you
> implemented C. I can't decide if you are confused or just lying.
The way it works in my language is very simple (this is what I do after
all):
type T = int
proc F(T x)= # Pass by value
println x.typestr
end
proc G(ref T x)= # Manual pass-by-reference
println x^.typestr
end
proc H(T &x)= # Auto pass-by-reference
println x.typestr
end
proc main=
T a
F(a)
G(&a)
H(a)
end
I've written 3 functions using pass-by-value, pass-by-value emulating
pass-by-reference, and actual pass-by-reference.
The G function and the call to G show what the compiler has to add when
it processes function H: address-of ops and derefs. The cost is a single
& in the parameter list to get that convenience.
This programs works just the same if T was changed to an array:
type T = [4]int
(The output is 3 lots of '[4]i64' instead of 3 lots of 'i64'; 'int' is
an alias for int64/i64.)
This is regular and orthogonal, a complete contrast to C even though
both languages supposedly operate at the same level.
The behaviour of F, when written in C, is like my F function when T is
an int (obviously the C won't have '.typestr').
But when T is an array, its behaviour is more like that of my H function.
So, my remark about arrays in C being passed by reference is understandable.
>> If somebody had proposed adding pass-by-reference for arrays, you'd say C
>> doesn't need it, because whatever benefits it might have you, C already
>> has!
>
> I see you are running out of statements to argue against so you have
> started to make up your own. I am sure you have thoroughly refuted this
> made up person in your head.
>
> Anyone proposing adding pass-by-reference for arrays would be told (by
> me at last) to start by allowing arrays to be passed by value first.
> Why anyone would propose adding pass by reference for a type that can't
> be currently be passed at all is a mystery that only you (as the
> inventor of this person) can know.
This is my point. Clearly true pass-by-reference for arrays wouldn't add
anything in C; it already works alike that! But due to complicated set
of rules and quirks, which quite different from the type model
illustrated above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-11 02:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87wmlslnro.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #387029 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 11/07/2024 00:01, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>> On 10/07/2024 14:32, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >>> I still consider arrays in C to be 'passed' by a >>> mechanism which is near-indistinguishable from actual >>> pass-by-reference. >> I don't really care how you consider it, but I do care about how you >> misrepresent the facts in public. >> In another post you said that your language has pass by reference, and >> we also know you have implemented C. Either you are just very confused >> and your language simply has call by value (after all, you think C has >> pass by reference), or you know that pass by reference in your language >> needs something from the implementation that was not needed when you >> implemented C. I can't decide if you are confused or just lying. > > > The way it works in my language is very simple... I'll cut the remarks I would otherwise make as it's off topic for a C group. ... > But when T is an array, its behaviour is more like that of my H function. > > So, my remark about arrays in C being passed by reference is understandable. I have always understood why you say this. It "looks a bit like it". But you have clarified. You have known all along that C passes everything by value because you have implemented it. You know how to implement pass by reference and your C compiler does not implement it. >>> If somebody had proposed adding pass-by-reference for arrays, you'd say C >>> doesn't need it, because whatever benefits it might have you, C already >>> has! >> I see you are running out of statements to argue against so you have >> started to make up your own. I am sure you have thoroughly refuted this >> made up person in your head. >> Anyone proposing adding pass-by-reference for arrays would be told (by >> me at last) to start by allowing arrays to be passed by value first. >> Why anyone would propose adding pass by reference for a type that can't >> be currently be passed at all is a mystery that only you (as the >> inventor of this person) can know. > > This is my point. Clearly true pass-by-reference for arrays wouldn't add > anything in C; It would add the ability to pass an array to a function -- something that C does not have. How many times will you have to be told? > it already works alike that! It does not. It works like passing a pointer by value, not like passing an array by reference. You have clearly shown that you know the difference. You are now just tolling. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web