Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #380602 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-01-22 01:51 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-01-25 15:02 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 649 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-22 01:51 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-01-22 02:00 +0000
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-21 21:48 -0500
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-22 05:23 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-22 09:30 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-22 16:24 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-22 20:34 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-22 13:22 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-22 22:07 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-22 14:56 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-22 23:44 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-23 00:10 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-22 20:34 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-22 21:32 +0000
Re: iso646.h Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-22 23:08 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-22 23:37 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-23 00:12 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-23 06:54 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 06:05 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 09:34 +0100
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-24 15:43 +0000
Re: iso646.h Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-22 20:23 -0800
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-23 06:47 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-23 21:50 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 08:59 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-23 09:24 +0100
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-23 21:30 +0000
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-23 22:03 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 08:53 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 07:58 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 20:11 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 12:23 -0800
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-24 21:55 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-25 07:22 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-01-24 20:25 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-25 00:17 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-01-25 00:50 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-25 01:23 +0000
Re: iso646.h "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 18:30 -0800
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-25 01:33 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-24 21:20 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-24 16:56 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 18:07 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 18:12 +0100
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-24 21:08 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-24 10:03 +0100
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-23 11:54 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 16:32 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-01-23 17:21 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-23 21:49 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-23 21:52 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 14:51 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-23 23:33 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 16:16 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 00:39 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 11:53 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 09:15 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 09:02 +0100
C/CPP macro conventions (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 08:25 +0100
Re: C/CPP macro conventions (was Re: iso646.h) Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-24 08:25 +0000
Re: C/CPP macro conventions (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 10:09 +0100
Re: C/CPP macro conventions (was Re: iso646.h) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-24 10:13 +0100
Re: C/CPP macro conventions (was Re: iso646.h) Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-25 23:05 +0000
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-23 18:34 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-23 18:52 +0000
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-23 14:23 -0500
Re: iso646.h kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-23 20:32 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-23 21:52 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-23 22:09 +0000
Re: iso646.h kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-23 22:37 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 09:10 +0100
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-24 12:24 -0500
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 18:38 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 18:42 +0100
Re: iso646.h kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-24 17:49 +0000
Re: iso646.h kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-24 18:40 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 20:15 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-24 22:01 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 11:52 -0800
Re: iso646.h kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-24 20:03 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 20:14 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-24 21:11 +0000
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-25 00:01 -0500
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 13:43 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-25 14:19 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 15:20 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-25 16:40 +0100
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-25 13:43 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 16:11 +0100
Re: iso646.h Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-03 11:35 -0800
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 09:09 +0100
Unix shell conditionals (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 08:38 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-23 21:28 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-23 22:00 +0000
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-23 22:33 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-23 23:46 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 14:49 -0800
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-23 19:45 -0500
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 09:28 +0100
Python (Re: iso646.h) kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-23 19:32 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-23 19:59 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-23 20:18 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2024-01-24 07:49 -0700
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-24 15:07 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-01-24 15:17 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-24 15:46 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-01-24 16:27 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-24 19:55 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-01-24 20:57 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 20:17 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-25 12:13 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-25 14:57 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 16:17 +0100
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-25 15:52 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-25 16:14 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-25 11:27 -0800
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-25 18:06 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-25 19:35 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-24 15:56 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 12:09 -0800
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-23 22:00 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-01-27 22:12 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-28 00:29 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-23 21:55 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-23 22:47 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 15:35 -0800
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 00:41 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-24 03:13 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-23 23:37 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-26 05:48 -0800
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-23 23:51 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 16:35 -0800
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 16:40 -0800
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-24 00:06 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-24 12:37 +0100
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-25 22:55 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-01-24 13:30 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 12:13 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-23 22:01 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-23 22:45 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-23 23:39 +0000
Re: iso646.h kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-23 22:54 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 15:10 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-23 23:40 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 16:27 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 00:47 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 17:32 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 02:42 +0000
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-23 23:56 -0500
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 05:24 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 21:43 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 06:35 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-24 14:14 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 20:19 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 07:34 -0800
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-23 23:26 -0500
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 20:53 -0800
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 09:41 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 08:15 -0800
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-24 19:32 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 09:06 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-01-24 14:17 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 08:30 -0800
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-24 21:00 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-24 22:13 +0000
Re: COBOL (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-25 00:44 +0000
Re: COBOL (was Re: iso646.h) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-25 01:37 +0000
Re: COBOL (was Re: iso646.h) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-01-25 02:20 +0000
Re: COBOL (was Re: iso646.h) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 18:23 -0800
Re: COBOL (was Re: iso646.h) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-25 11:58 +0000
Re: COBOL (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-25 02:49 +0000
Re: COBOL (was Re: iso646.h) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 19:09 -0800
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 17:44 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-24 17:27 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 20:21 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 12:26 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-01-24 20:31 +0000
Re: COBOL (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-25 00:53 +0000
Re: COBOL (was Re: iso646.h) Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-25 01:24 +0000
Re: COBOL (was Re: iso646.h) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 18:21 -0800
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-24 22:09 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-24 23:20 +0000
Re: iso646.h "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 15:56 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 12:20 +0000
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-24 13:00 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 14:22 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-24 14:54 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 08:27 -0800
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-24 20:50 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 14:01 +0100
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-25 13:53 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 16:48 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-25 09:57 -0800
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 21:07 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-25 20:18 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-26 15:59 +0100
Re: Compose Key (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-26 21:22 +0000
Re: Compose Key (was Re: iso646.h) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-27 16:17 +0100
Re: Compose Key (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-27 21:28 +0000
Re: Compose Key (was Re: iso646.h) Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-27 22:38 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-25 20:08 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-25 20:30 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-25 21:13 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-25 20:06 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-25 21:04 +0000
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-25 21:16 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-25 22:01 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-26 02:11 +0100
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-26 01:19 +0000
Operators (Algol 68) (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-26 02:08 +0100
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-25 00:52 +0000
Re: iso646.h "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 17:07 -0800
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-25 07:48 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 14:07 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-25 14:35 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 16:53 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-25 17:11 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 21:11 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-26 02:21 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-26 17:01 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-26 18:31 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-26 19:59 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-26 12:27 -0800
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-26 22:01 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-26 22:30 +0100
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-26 20:22 -0500
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-27 16:43 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-28 20:14 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-29 14:09 +0100
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-26 20:10 -0500
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-27 16:44 +0100
Re: Functional Programming (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-27 20:49 +0000
Re: Functional Programming (was Re: iso646.h) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-28 00:22 +0000
Re: Functional Programming (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-28 01:18 +0000
Re: Functional Programming (was Re: iso646.h) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-28 02:06 +0000
Re: Functional Programming (was Re: iso646.h) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-28 12:35 +0100
Re: Functional Programming (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-28 20:40 +0000
Re: Functional Programming (was Re: iso646.h) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-29 09:52 +0100
Re: Functional Programming (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 05:13 +0000
Re: Functional Programming (was Re: iso646.h) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 09:21 +0100
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-28 01:31 -0500
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-28 12:40 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-26 21:16 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-26 22:46 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-26 22:41 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-26 15:41 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-26 23:51 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-27 01:17 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-27 16:25 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-28 18:46 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-26 23:52 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-27 01:27 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-27 00:38 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-27 11:09 +0100
Re: Localization (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-27 20:58 +0000
Re: Localization (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-28 15:57 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-27 16:58 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-27 17:26 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-27 18:53 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-27 19:39 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 17:31 -0800
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-28 12:50 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-27 20:59 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 17:34 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-28 01:50 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 17:53 -0800
Re: iso646.h "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 18:47 -0800
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-28 12:53 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-28 20:43 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-28 14:49 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-29 00:03 +0000
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-29 01:24 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-28 17:48 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-29 02:17 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-29 17:06 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-29 17:05 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-29 23:56 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-29 13:35 +0100
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-29 16:23 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-29 18:40 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 16:33 -0800
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-27 00:42 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 03:16 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-27 17:24 +0000
Re: Java (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-27 21:04 +0000
[OT] Re: Java (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-28 17:42 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: Java (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-28 20:44 +0000
[OT] Usefulness of OO/C++/features (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-28 17:18 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 03:11 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 03:24 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-27 11:43 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 11:13 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-27 12:53 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 20:17 +0000
Re: iso646.h Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-01-27 21:40 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-28 00:31 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-28 18:22 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-28 22:55 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-28 15:00 -0800
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-29 12:09 -0500
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-29 19:33 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-29 12:48 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-29 23:51 +0000
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-29 12:10 -0500
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-29 12:53 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-27 21:06 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-28 00:35 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-28 01:22 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 17:26 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-28 01:59 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-28 13:00 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-28 16:09 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-28 18:06 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-28 19:24 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-28 19:49 +0000
Re: Binary Pipelines (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-28 20:48 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-28 14:54 -0800
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-29 17:18 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-29 18:47 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-29 21:06 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-29 13:00 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 18:29 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-30 20:23 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 12:06 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 21:04 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 06:04 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 08:59 +0100
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 12:53 +0200
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 14:21 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 14:02 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 14:05 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 14:35 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 11:30 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 18:35 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 22:41 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 01:59 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-29 23:55 +0000
Re: iso646.h Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-29 12:10 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-29 22:14 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-29 22:24 +0000
Re: iso646.h Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-29 23:27 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 09:13 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-30 14:03 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 15:49 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-30 16:06 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-01-30 16:12 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 16:33 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-30 16:54 +0000
Re: iso646.h Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-01-30 19:39 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 06:12 +0000
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-31 01:39 -0500
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:20 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 14:47 +0100
Re: iso646.h Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-01-31 19:43 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 12:14 -0800
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-31 20:25 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 13:26 -0800
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-01 01:23 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 01:34 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-01 16:28 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 23:25 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 15:34 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 01:58 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 18:27 -0800
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 14:52 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 16:01 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 01:13 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-02 02:15 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 05:08 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-02 15:28 +0000
Re: iso646.h Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-02-02 16:50 +0000
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-02-01 00:52 -0500
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-02-01 00:45 -0500
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-30 17:25 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-30 16:55 +0000
Creation era of stdin, stdout, stderr (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-30 19:06 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-30 20:29 +0100
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-30 20:24 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 12:55 -0800
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-30 21:42 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 06:10 +0000
Re: iso646.h dave_thompson_2@comcast.net - 2024-02-26 04:20 -0500
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 17:34 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-30 18:43 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-30 20:54 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 06:07 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 14:45 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:20 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 08:38 -0800
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 19:05 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 00:08 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 02:10 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-02 02:12 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 03:42 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-02 03:47 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 20:02 -0800
Re: iso646.h dave_thompson_2@comcast.net - 2024-02-26 04:18 -0500
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-30 15:00 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 15:21 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-30 15:53 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 06:03 +0000
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 15:28 +0200
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-30 15:30 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-30 15:54 +0000
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-30 16:10 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-30 17:49 +0100
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-30 18:22 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-30 18:44 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-30 20:46 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 12:22 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 14:58 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 15:39 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 18:39 +0000
Re: iso646.h Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-01-30 19:45 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 11:59 -0800
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-30 16:16 -0500
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 12:35 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 15:09 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 15:46 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 19:11 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 10:35 -0800
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 11:34 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 17:24 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 22:46 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:29 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 08:41 -0800
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 17:06 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 06:00 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:15 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 11:50 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 06:02 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 12:43 +0100
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 13:58 +0200
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 13:35 +0100
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 15:10 +0200
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 18:19 +0100
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 19:53 +0200
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 23:49 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:17 +0000
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-31 11:20 -0500
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 18:06 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 23:52 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 08:30 -0800
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:16 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 06:06 +0000
Re: iso646.h Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-30 23:18 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 08:36 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 15:21 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:22 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 19:15 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 16:25 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:58 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 17:17 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 17:05 +0000
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 18:26 +0200
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 18:27 +0200
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 19:01 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 19:24 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 02:18 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 19:20 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 02:48 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 07:16 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 13:17 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 16:04 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 08:33 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 23:48 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 16:49 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 01:10 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 17:36 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 02:23 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 18:30 -0800
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 00:49 +0000
Re: iso646.h Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-01 05:24 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 15:07 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 12:18 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 23:57 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 13:34 +0100
Re: iso646.h Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-03 11:27 -0800
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 12:43 +0200
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 12:15 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 13:49 +0100
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 17:03 +0200
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:49 +0000
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 18:04 +0200
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 16:54 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 09:16 -0800
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 17:21 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 15:53 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 17:29 +0100
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 19:36 +0200
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 19:47 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:25 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 16:33 +0100
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 17:42 +0200
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:58 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 17:05 +0100
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 18:18 +0200
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 17:47 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 17:20 +0000
[OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 20:11 +0100
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 19:28 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 13:12 +0100
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 12:50 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 04:57 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 07:18 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-03 01:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 09:34 +0100
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 10:57 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-03 01:43 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 12:47 -0800
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-04 22:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 15:26 -0800
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-05 01:49 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 18:08 -0800
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 15:04 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 16:16 +0100
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-01-31 20:16 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 22:22 +0200
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 20:50 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 23:00 +0200
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-01-31 21:20 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 13:27 +0100
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 13:16 +0100
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-02-01 13:21 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 11:45 +0100
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 13:03 +0100
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 04:58 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-01 05:22 -0800
[meta] Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 15:38 +0100
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 05:00 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 19:22 +0100
Re: iso646.h Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-01 05:17 -0800
Re: Alternative Shells (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 05:04 +0000
Re: iso646.h Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-01-31 23:36 +0000
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 00:21 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 00:47 +0000
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 01:29 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 14:42 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 15:50 +0100
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 17:06 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 23:02 +0100
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 22:56 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 03:13 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 09:44 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 01:08 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 15:35 +0100
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 15:32 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 12:23 -0800
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 03:26 +0100
Re: iso646.h Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-02 23:41 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 01:53 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 14:45 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 14:57 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 16:47 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 16:22 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 15:55 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 15:41 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 17:15 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 19:36 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-01 19:50 +0000
Re: iso646.h Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-02-01 20:03 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 23:06 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 22:38 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 09:51 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 13:28 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 15:47 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 15:38 +0000
Re: iso646.h Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-02 23:38 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-02 23:59 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 05:24 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 14:02 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 13:26 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 16:07 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 15:50 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 16:30 +0000
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 18:03 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 12:09 -0800
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 20:59 +0000
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 21:25 +0000
Re: iso646.h "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 13:34 -0800
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 22:25 +0000
Re: iso646.h "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 14:40 -0800
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 15:31 -0800
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 22:24 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 12:41 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 08:39 -0800
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 12:33 +0100
Re: iso646.h Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-02 21:40 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 05:14 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 16:48 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 16:19 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 14:53 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-28 18:02 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 19:33 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-24 19:45 +0000
Re: iso646.h kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-24 19:48 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-25 00:30 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-25 03:56 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-25 05:25 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-25 07:02 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 14:46 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 14:29 +0100
Re: iso646.h kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-25 15:08 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-25 16:18 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-25 11:20 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-26 12:17 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-26 07:56 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-26 23:03 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-26 17:06 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-26 18:59 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-26 20:18 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-26 23:15 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-26 15:55 -0800
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-27 17:07 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 17:34 -0800
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-28 13:02 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-27 01:12 +0100
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-26 20:43 -0500
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-27 11:21 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 03:05 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-27 11:34 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 11:02 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-27 12:36 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-29 18:32 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-29 19:48 +0100
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-29 19:35 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-29 21:10 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-29 22:27 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-30 10:05 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-27 17:46 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-28 20:16 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-29 17:20 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-25 10:48 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-23 21:51 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 19:48 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-24 19:52 +0000
Re: iso646.h "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 13:00 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-25 00:26 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-25 01:25 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 12:09 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-25 03:46 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 19:59 -0800
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-25 05:39 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-25 09:55 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 15:19 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-25 07:26 -0800
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-26 17:12 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-25 16:22 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 15:02 +0100
Page 11 of 33 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 33 Next page →
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-25 20:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uouf42$2ei7i$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380926 |
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 09:57:43 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote: > Then we'll have "x ↑ y", and no possible confusion. > > That's difficult to type Compose-circumflex-bar, or compose-bar-circumflex. ↑↑ (typed by me)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-25 20:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <MxzsN.122721$q3F7.88747@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #380945 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: >On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 09:57:43 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote: > >> Then we'll have "x ↑ y", and no possible confusion. >> >> That's difficult to type > >Compose-circumflex-bar, or compose-bar-circumflex. yep, difficult to type. > >↑↑ (typed by me) and to read.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-25 21:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240125130525.907@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #380945 |
On 2024-01-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 09:57:43 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote: > >> Then we'll have "x ↑ y", and no possible confusion. >> >> That's difficult to type > > Compose-circumflex-bar, or compose-bar-circumflex. > > ↑↑ (typed by me) In Japanese IME: type ue, then space bar several times to find the completion, which becomes the top one in the LRU list for the next time you type ue. Japanese IME is great. Need an Ohm symbol? o-mu, spacebar: Ω. omega also works. ha-to: ♥ onpu: ♪ hoshi: ★, ☆ arufa, be-ta, ganma, deruta, ...: α, β, γ, Δ hidari: ← (and others) migi: → (and others) shita: ↓ -- 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 | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-25 20:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uouf0e$2ei7i$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380899 |
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 14:01:36 +0100, David Brown wrote: > I'm hoping the C++ people while do the sane/unthinkable (cross out one, > according to personal preference) thing and allow Unicode symbols for > operators, which will then be added to the standard library rather than > to the language. Why not do what Algol-68 did, and specify a set of characters that could be used to define new custom operators?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-25 21:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240125125621.856@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #380943 |
On 2024-01-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 14:01:36 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>
>> I'm hoping the C++ people while do the sane/unthinkable (cross out one,
>> according to personal preference) thing and allow Unicode symbols for
>> operators, which will then be added to the standard library rather than
>> to the language.
>
> Why not do what Algol-68 did, and specify a set of characters that could
> be used to define new custom operators?
That ship sailed. C uses maximal munch lexing which allows operators
to be juxtaposed with no intervening space. E.g. !*++p is tokenized
as {!}{*}{++}{p}. It's difficult to introduce a scheme for defining
new combinations of characters as new kinds of tokens. The only
ASCII glyphs that are not some kind of token already are $ and @;
they are not used in C. So program-defined tokens would have to start
with one of these. If a program-defined token started with something
existing like *, for instance a token *%%*, that already has an existing
meaning; it scans as {*}{%}{%}{*}. Hacky rules, like speculative parses,
and whatnot, could make it work; there is now way something like that
could be standardized into C, though.
We can use *%%* as a symbol in ANSI Lisp, because Lisp has tokenizing
rules which support that. Tokens are made up of token constituent
characters, and are delimited by the first nonconstituent. For instance
( is a non-constituent (for obvious reasons) so *%%*( will be read
properly as the *%%* token (which becomes a symbol object) followed
by an open parenthesis starting a list. Likewise, whitespace is
terminating. The # character has a special meaning in various notations,
and is also a token constituent so that #c(1.0 2.0) is a complex
number, yet ab#c is a single symbol token.
Nothing like this is easy to retrofit into C.
--
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 | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-25 21:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uouj2u$2faug$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380943 |
On 25/01/2024 20:06, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 14:01:36 +0100, David Brown wrote: > >> I'm hoping the C++ people while do the sane/unthinkable (cross out one, >> according to personal preference) thing and allow Unicode symbols for >> operators, which will then be added to the standard library rather than >> to the language. > > Why not do what Algol-68 did, and specify a set of characters that could > be used to define new custom operators? Because that was a terrible scheme. It was too easy to create a language full of cryptic-looking new operators that no one had any idea what they did. It also allowed you to define precedences of any operator, including overriding the precedence of any operator within a nested scope. That means that 'a + b * c' could be parsed differently in different contexts. Imagine putting that power into the hands of ordinary users.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-25 22:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uoulon$2fp6j$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380952 |
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 21:16:14 +0000, bart wrote: > Imagine putting that power into the hands of ordinary users. Shock, horror. Of course we elite cannot allow that into the hands of the plebs. Imagine what they might do!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-26 02:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uov0rv$2hbbs$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380956 |
On 25.01.2024 23:01, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 21:16:14 +0000, bart wrote: > >> Imagine putting that power into the hands of ordinary users. > > Shock, horror. Of course we elite cannot allow that into the hands of the > plebs. Imagine what they might do! Power to the people! Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-26 01:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240125171931.739@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #380964 |
On 2024-01-26, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 25.01.2024 23:01, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 21:16:14 +0000, bart wrote: >> >>> Imagine putting that power into the hands of ordinary users. >> >> Shock, horror. Of course we elite cannot allow that into the hands of the >> plebs. Imagine what they might do! > > Power to the people! And through the chairs of bad people! -- 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 | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-26 02:08 +0100 |
| Subject | Operators (Algol 68) (was Re: iso646.h) |
| Message-ID | <uov0lq$2hbbs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380943 |
On 25.01.2024 21:06, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > > Why not do what Algol-68 did, and specify a set of characters that could > be used to define new custom operators? What do you mean by "specify a set of characters that could be used"? In Algol(68) you can use punctuation characters, letters, or words. Just declare the operator and its priority. A few examples from some old test source code on my disk... OP H = (INT a, b) INT : ( a+b ); PRIO H = 5; OP ~ = (INT a, b) INT : ( a+b ); PRIO ~ = 5; IF 2 H 3 = 5 THEN print (62) ELSE print (63) FI; IF 2 ~ 3 = 5 THEN print (72) ELSE print (73) FI; PRIO O = 9; OP O = (INT a, b) INT : a * b; print ((a O b + 1)) OP MAX = (INT a, INT b) INT : ( a > b | a | b ); PRIO MAX = 4; print (5 MAX 7); Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-25 00:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uosbci$211eh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380803 |
On 24/01/2024 16:27, Keith Thompson wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > [...] >> (It could not have been added as "**", because - as Keith said in >> another post - "x ** y" already has a meaning in C. While I believe >> it would be possible to distinguish the uses based on the type of "y", >> other than for the literal 0, having "x ** y" mean two /completely/ >> different things depending on the type of "y" would not be a good idea >> for C.) > > The problem with a "**" exponentation operator is lexical. It's common > to have two consecutive unary "*" operators in declarations and > expression: > char **argv; > char c = **argv; > Adding a "**" operator would have made the above invalid due to the > "maximal munch" rule, before the type of the argument is even > considered. > > See also x+++++y, which might be intended as x++ + ++y, but is scanned > as x ++ ++ + y, a syntax error. > > C could have added "**" very early, but then we'd have to write > "* *argv" or "*(*argv)". Given the other syntax decisions, probably the best bet would have been to have a named /operator/ called 'pow'. With two operatands, using function-like syntax 'pow(x, y)' would look better than 'x pow y'. This could then be defined over float, double, int and friends. You wouldn't be able to have a reference to it as you can with a function, but why is that so important? You can't have reference to the multiply operator either!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-24 17:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <uosc9g$213s3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380865 |
On 1/24/2024 4:52 PM, bart wrote: > On 24/01/2024 16:27, Keith Thompson wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> [...] >>> (It could not have been added as "**", because - as Keith said in >>> another post - "x ** y" already has a meaning in C. While I believe >>> it would be possible to distinguish the uses based on the type of "y", >>> other than for the literal 0, having "x ** y" mean two /completely/ >>> different things depending on the type of "y" would not be a good idea >>> for C.) >> >> The problem with a "**" exponentation operator is lexical. It's common >> to have two consecutive unary "*" operators in declarations and >> expression: >> char **argv; >> char c = **argv; >> Adding a "**" operator would have made the above invalid due to the >> "maximal munch" rule, before the type of the argument is even >> considered. >> >> See also x+++++y, which might be intended as x++ + ++y, but is scanned >> as x ++ ++ + y, a syntax error. >> >> C could have added "**" very early, but then we'd have to write >> "* *argv" or "*(*argv)". > > Given the other syntax decisions, probably the best bet would have been > to have a named /operator/ called 'pow'. With two operatands, using > function-like syntax 'pow(x, y)' would look better than 'x pow y'. > > This could then be defined over float, double, int and friends. > > You wouldn't be able to have a reference to it as you can with a > function, but why is that so important? You can't have reference to the > multiply operator either! > > Would p * p * p * p be pow(p, 4)? ;^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-25 07:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uot08a$278i2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380803 |
On 24.01.2024 17:27, Keith Thompson wrote: > > (C++, in 2011 IIRC, introduced special handling for the >> token, which > occurs in things like std::vector<std::vector<int>>). So you need not any more have to write it with a space as in ...? std::vector<std::vector<int> > That's fine. But I suppose they haven't fixed its precedence in cin<< and cout>> contexts? (I suppose it's still handled with shl/shr precedence?) Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-25 14:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uotmed$2ack6$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380888 |
On 25/01/2024 07:48, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 24.01.2024 17:27, Keith Thompson wrote: >> >> (C++, in 2011 IIRC, introduced special handling for the >> token, which >> occurs in things like std::vector<std::vector<int>>). > > So you need not any more have to write it with a space as in ...? > std::vector<std::vector<int> > > That's fine. > > But I suppose they haven't fixed its precedence in cin<< and cout>> > contexts? (I suppose it's still handled with shl/shr precedence?) > There's little problem with the precedence - that's one of the reasons these operators were picked in the first place. You sometimes need parentheses, but not often. The problem was with the order of evaluation. Prior to C++17 (where it was fixed), if you wrote "cout << one() << two() << three();", the order the three functions were evaluated was unspecified.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-25 14:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uoto3n$2an28$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380900 |
On 25.01.2024 14:07, David Brown wrote: > > The problem was with the order of evaluation. Prior to C++17 (where it > was fixed), if you wrote "cout << one() << two() << three();", the order > the three functions were evaluated was unspecified. The last decade or two I haven't been in C++ to any depth. But I'm a bit surprised by that. The op<< is defined by something like [informally] stream op<<(stream,value), where "two() << three()" is "value << value", but "cout << one()" would yield a stream, say X, and "X << two()" again a stream, etc. So actually we have nested functions op<<( op<<( op<<(cout, one()), two()), three()) At least you'd need to evaluate one() to obtain the argument for the next outer of the nested calls. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-25 16:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uou05d$2bvjr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380903 |
On 25/01/2024 14:35, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 25.01.2024 14:07, David Brown wrote: >> >> The problem was with the order of evaluation. Prior to C++17 (where it >> was fixed), if you wrote "cout << one() << two() << three();", the order >> the three functions were evaluated was unspecified. > > The last decade or two I haven't been in C++ to any depth. But I'm a bit > surprised by that. The op<< is defined by something like [informally] > stream op<<(stream,value), where "two() << three()" is "value << value", > but "cout << one()" would yield a stream, say X, and "X << two()" again > a stream, etc. So actually we have nested functions > op<<( op<<( op<<(cout, one()), two()), three()) > At least you'd need to evaluate one() to obtain the argument for the > next outer of the nested calls. > Not quite. To simplify : cout << one() << two() is parsed as : (cout << one()) << two() So "cout << one()" is like a call to "op<<(cout, one())", and the full expression is like : op<<(op<<(cout, one()), two()) Without the new C++17 order of evaluation rules, the compiler can happily execute "two()" before "op<<(cout, one())". The operands to the outer call need to be executed before the outer call itself, but the order in which these two operands are evaluated is unspecified (until C++17). Note that C++17 only specifies the order in certain cases, such as the bitwise shift operators.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-25 17:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uou170$2c7ed$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380919 |
On 25.01.2024 16:53, David Brown wrote:
> On 25/01/2024 14:35, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 25.01.2024 14:07, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> The problem was with the order of evaluation. Prior to C++17 (where it
>>> was fixed), if you wrote "cout << one() << two() << three();", the order
>>> the three functions were evaluated was unspecified.
>>
>> The last decade or two I haven't been in C++ to any depth. But I'm a bit
>> surprised by that. The op<< is defined by something like [informally]
>> stream op<<(stream,value), where "two() << three()" is "value << value",
>> but "cout << one()" would yield a stream, say X, and "X << two()" again
>> a stream, etc. So actually we have nested functions
>> op<<( op<<( op<<(cout, one()), two()), three())
>> At least you'd need to evaluate one() to obtain the argument for the
>> next outer of the nested calls.
>>
>
> Not quite. To simplify :
>
> cout << one() << two()
>
> is parsed as :
>
> (cout << one()) << two()
>
> So "cout << one()" is like a call to "op<<(cout, one())", and the full
> expression is like :
>
> op<<(op<<(cout, one()), two())
Yes, up to here that's exactly what I said above (with three nestings).
op<<( op<<( op<<(cout, one()), two()), three())
Remove one
op<<( op<<(cout, one()), two())
>
> Without the new C++17 order of evaluation rules, the compiler can
> happily execute "two()" before "op<<(cout, one())". The operands to the
> outer call need to be executed before the outer call itself, but the
> order in which these two operands are evaluated is unspecified (until
> C++17).
If that was formerly the case then the update was obviously necessary.
Functionally there would probably have been commotion if
tmp = op<<(cout, one())
op<<( tmp, two())
and
op<<( op<<(cout, one()), two())
would have had different results.
Is or was there any compiler that implemented that in the "unexpected"
order?
> [...]
Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-25 21:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uouf96$2em2l$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380920 |
On 25/01/2024 17:11, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 25.01.2024 16:53, David Brown wrote: >> On 25/01/2024 14:35, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >>> On 25.01.2024 14:07, David Brown wrote: >>>> >>>> The problem was with the order of evaluation. Prior to C++17 (where it >>>> was fixed), if you wrote "cout << one() << two() << three();", the order >>>> the three functions were evaluated was unspecified. >>> >>> The last decade or two I haven't been in C++ to any depth. But I'm a bit >>> surprised by that. The op<< is defined by something like [informally] >>> stream op<<(stream,value), where "two() << three()" is "value << value", >>> but "cout << one()" would yield a stream, say X, and "X << two()" again >>> a stream, etc. So actually we have nested functions >>> op<<( op<<( op<<(cout, one()), two()), three()) >>> At least you'd need to evaluate one() to obtain the argument for the >>> next outer of the nested calls. >>> >> >> Not quite. To simplify : >> >> cout << one() << two() >> >> is parsed as : >> >> (cout << one()) << two() >> >> So "cout << one()" is like a call to "op<<(cout, one())", and the full >> expression is like : >> >> op<<(op<<(cout, one()), two()) > > Yes, up to here that's exactly what I said above (with three nestings). > > op<<( op<<( op<<(cout, one()), two()), three()) > > Remove one > > op<<( op<<(cout, one()), two()) > >> >> Without the new C++17 order of evaluation rules, the compiler can >> happily execute "two()" before "op<<(cout, one())". The operands to the >> outer call need to be executed before the outer call itself, but the >> order in which these two operands are evaluated is unspecified (until >> C++17). > > If that was formerly the case then the update was obviously necessary. > > Functionally there would probably have been commotion if > > tmp = op<<(cout, one()) > op<<( tmp, two()) > > and > > op<<( op<<(cout, one()), two()) > > would have had different results. > > Is or was there any compiler that implemented that in the "unexpected" > order? > There were indeed such real-world cases, complaints were made, and the rules changed in C++17. Usually it doesn't matter what order arguments to functions (or operands to operators) are evaluated. Some compilers have consistent ordering (and it is often last to first, not first to last), others pick whatever makes sense at the time. The ordering has been explicitly and clearly stated as "unspecified" since around the beginning of time (which was, as we all know, 01.01.1970).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-26 02:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uov1f5$2heei$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380946 |
On 25.01.2024 21:11, David Brown wrote: > On 25/01/2024 17:11, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >> On 25.01.2024 16:53, David Brown wrote: >>> On 25/01/2024 14:35, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >>>> On 25.01.2024 14:07, David Brown wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The problem was with the order of evaluation. Prior to C++17 >>>>> (where it >>>>> was fixed), if you wrote "cout << one() << two() << three();", the >>>>> order >>>>> the three functions were evaluated was unspecified. >>>> >>>> The last decade or two I haven't been in C++ to any depth. But I'm a >>>> bit >>>> surprised by that. The op<< is defined by something like [informally] >>>> stream op<<(stream,value), where "two() << three()" is "value << >>>> value", >>>> but "cout << one()" would yield a stream, say X, and "X << two()" again >>>> a stream, etc. So actually we have nested functions >>>> op<<( op<<( op<<(cout, one()), two()), three()) >>>> At least you'd need to evaluate one() to obtain the argument for the >>>> next outer of the nested calls. >>>> >>> >>> Not quite. To simplify : >>> >>> cout << one() << two() >>> >>> is parsed as : >>> >>> (cout << one()) << two() >>> >>> So "cout << one()" is like a call to "op<<(cout, one())", and the full >>> expression is like : >>> >>> op<<(op<<(cout, one()), two()) >> >> Yes, up to here that's exactly what I said above (with three nestings). >> >> op<<( op<<( op<<(cout, one()), two()), three()) >> >> Remove one >> >> op<<( op<<(cout, one()), two()) >> >>> >>> Without the new C++17 order of evaluation rules, the compiler can >>> happily execute "two()" before "op<<(cout, one())". The operands to the >>> outer call need to be executed before the outer call itself, but the >>> order in which these two operands are evaluated is unspecified (until >>> C++17). >> >> If that was formerly the case then the update was obviously necessary. >> >> Functionally there would probably have been commotion if >> >> tmp = op<<(cout, one()) >> op<<( tmp, two()) >> >> and >> >> op<<( op<<(cout, one()), two()) >> >> would have had different results. >> >> Is or was there any compiler that implemented that in the "unexpected" >> order? >> > > There were indeed such real-world cases, complaints were made, Complaints that the rule was not clear in its definition? Or complaints that their compiler did not support cout<<a<<b<<c; correctly? - I would be astonished about the latter. This is so fundamental a construct and so frequently used that any compiler would have been withdrawn in the week after it came out. That is my expectation. So I would be grateful if you could provide some evidence that I can look up. Mind that even if two() is evaluated before one(), it will not be output before the stream of the first expression op<<(cout, one()) is available, and for this one() must be evaluated. Then one() can be sent to the stream, and then also two() can be sent to the stream. (Am I missing something?) Janis > and the rules changed in C++17. > > Usually it doesn't matter what order arguments to functions (or operands > to operators) are evaluated. Some compilers have consistent ordering > (and it is often last to first, not first to last), others pick whatever > makes sense at the time. The ordering has been explicitly and clearly > stated as "unspecified" since around the beginning of time (which was, > as we all know, 01.01.1970).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-26 17:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <up0l1l$2u6hl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380966 |
On 26/01/2024 02:21, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 25.01.2024 21:11, David Brown wrote: >> On 25/01/2024 17:11, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >>> Is or was there any compiler that implemented that in the "unexpected" >>> order? >>> >> >> There were indeed such real-world cases, complaints were made, > > Complaints that the rule was not clear in its definition? > Or complaints that their compiler did not support cout<<a<<b<<c; > correctly? - I would be astonished about the latter. The pre-C++17 rule was perfectly clear - there was no specified order of execution for the operands. (And I thought I'd made /that/ perfectly clear already.) Compilers all worked correctly - they can hardly have fallen foul of a rule that did not exist. The complaints (at least, the ones based on facts rather than misunderstandings) were about the lack of a rule that enforced evaluation order in certain cases. So C++17 added rules for evaluation orders in some circumstances, but not others. In C++17, but not before (and not in C), the evaluation of the expression "one" (and any side-effects) must come before the evaluation of "two" for, amongst other things : one << two one >> two one[two] two = one There is still /no/ ordering for one * two one + two and many other cases. And of course there are cases where there has always been a sequence point, and therefore an order of evaluation (a logical order, that is - if the compiler can see it makes no difference to the observable effects, it can always re-arrange anything). <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/eval_order> <https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/eval_order> > This is so fundamental a construct and so frequently used that any > compiler would have been withdrawn in the week after it came out. > That is my expectation. So I would be grateful if you could provide > some evidence that I can look up. <https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0145r3.pdf> For an example in practice, where you can see the generated assembly: <https://www.godbolt.org/z/fWezzx1nd> If I remember correctly, gcc 7 implemented the ordering rules from C++17 and back-ported them to previous C++ standards for user convenience (as the order was previously unspecified, it was fine to do that). Look at the generated assembly and the order in which the calls to one(), two(), three() and four() are made. For the operator "<<", they are made in order one() to four(). For the operator "+", and for function call parameters, they are generated in order four() to one() for this case. (In other cases, that may be different - that's what "unspecified" means.) > > Mind that even if two() is evaluated before one(), it will not be > output before the stream of the first expression op<<(cout, one()) > is available, and for this one() must be evaluated. Then one() can > be sent to the stream, and then also two() can be sent to the stream. > (Am I missing something?) The output to the stream must be in the order given in the code - that is true. But the values to be output could (prior to C++17) be evaluated in any order. If one() and two() have side-effects, that is critical - those side-effects could be executed in any order. > > Janis > >> and the rules changed in C++17. >> >> Usually it doesn't matter what order arguments to functions (or operands >> to operators) are evaluated. Some compilers have consistent ordering >> (and it is often last to first, not first to last), others pick whatever >> makes sense at the time. The ordering has been explicitly and clearly >> stated as "unspecified" since around the beginning of time (which was, >> as we all know, 01.01.1970). > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 33 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 33 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web