Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #172354 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-08-16 00:31 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-08-17 03:42 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 287 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 00:31 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-16 11:14 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-17 00:23 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 21:38 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-17 12:19 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 07:53 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-19 00:15 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:33 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-19 21:46 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 03:04 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2023-08-19 13:19 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-19 14:48 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2023-08-19 15:09 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2023-08-19 15:17 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-19 21:05 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-19 21:05 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-19 21:07 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-19 22:31 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 22:04 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-20 07:41 -0400
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-20 17:00 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 11:20 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 14:45 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-21 00:05 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 19:45 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-21 14:51 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-21 11:28 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 02:59 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-21 15:17 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 23:03 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-22 14:09 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 05:38 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-22 15:31 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 06:51 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-22 19:19 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 21:59 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-23 09:57 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 07:48 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-23 16:05 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 08:21 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-23 19:30 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-23 18:50 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 10:49 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-23 18:08 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-23 21:28 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 20:53 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-24 15:15 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 07:50 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-24 16:48 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-24 17:35 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-24 18:09 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-25 09:59 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-25 09:46 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 01:37 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 08:50 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 01:53 -0700
Underscores in type names (was : C vs Haskell for XML parsing) Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 09:17 +0000
Re: Underscores in type names (was : C vs Haskell for XML parsing) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 11:35 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-25 13:42 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-25 13:59 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing candycane@f172.n1.z21.fsxnet (candycane) - 2023-08-26 00:45 +1300
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-25 19:50 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 02:55 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-26 19:21 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 03:05 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-27 18:28 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-28 14:01 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-28 16:07 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-29 09:16 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-29 19:22 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-29 19:38 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-29 20:11 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-29 21:59 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-30 00:43 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-30 12:30 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-30 05:04 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-30 17:50 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-30 19:41 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-31 11:18 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2023-08-30 14:40 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-30 15:03 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-30 12:00 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-30 20:50 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-31 08:12 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-09-01 11:51 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-27 00:55 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-28 16:17 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 04:31 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-25 14:06 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2023-08-25 15:35 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 11:45 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2023-08-25 20:06 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 19:35 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 19:55 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 20:26 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-26 19:24 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 02:52 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-26 14:10 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 22:54 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-27 18:39 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-08-27 15:56 -0400
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 00:42 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-28 10:39 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 02:03 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-28 13:29 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-28 16:35 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 10:11 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-28 19:40 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 12:31 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-28 22:39 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 14:22 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-28 16:02 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-28 16:21 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 10:05 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 14:50 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 14:50 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-28 14:13 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-26 19:31 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 23:08 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 23:23 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-27 18:41 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-25 13:38 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 11:59 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-25 19:34 -0400
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 17:12 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-26 01:44 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-25 22:18 -0400
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 19:58 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-25 23:07 -0400
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 21:17 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-26 10:12 -0400
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 15:13 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-26 19:47 -0400
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 19:09 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-26 22:27 -0400
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-27 18:55 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-26 02:16 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 18:39 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-25 22:26 -0400
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-26 11:07 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-26 10:33 -0400
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-26 16:27 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-26 11:57 -0400
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-26 17:11 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-26 12:35 -0400
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-26 18:24 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-26 13:35 -0400
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-26 20:11 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-26 17:07 -0400
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-26 22:40 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 23:32 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 03:02 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-27 13:25 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 14:37 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-26 19:49 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-26 22:00 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-26 17:31 -0400
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 15:28 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-27 04:24 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 21:59 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing candycane@f172.n1.z21.fsxnet (candycane) - 2023-08-27 02:42 +1300
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-27 11:23 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-27 22:45 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-27 19:06 -0400
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-08-28 02:18 -0400
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 16:21 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-28 00:00 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 19:36 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-28 03:00 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-28 06:58 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 15:22 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-28 16:49 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 17:11 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-29 16:06 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-29 08:27 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-29 01:36 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-29 01:22 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-29 10:40 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-29 02:53 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-29 03:00 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-29 16:18 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-29 13:06 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-29 22:14 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-30 01:32 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-30 21:09 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-30 12:44 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-08-30 12:32 -0400
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-30 11:44 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-09-09 01:15 -0400
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-31 04:47 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-30 11:42 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-30 23:36 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-31 08:15 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-09-01 11:48 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-09-03 03:55 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-09-03 11:44 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-09-03 16:20 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-09-03 16:47 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-03 17:24 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-10-03 03:16 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-09-03 17:26 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-10-03 03:19 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-29 19:43 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-29 13:23 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bobby Moore <bobbymoore018@gmail.com> - 2023-08-29 13:54 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-29 11:41 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-29 08:29 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-29 16:54 +0100
Re: Named function arguments (Was : C vs Haskell for XML parsing) Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-08-30 19:30 +0000
Re: Named function arguments (Was : C vs Haskell for XML parsing) Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-30 19:53 +0000
Re: Named function arguments (Was : C vs Haskell for XML parsing) Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-08-30 20:07 +0000
Re: Named function arguments (Was : C vs Haskell for XML parsing) Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-30 20:42 +0000
Re: Named function arguments (Was : C vs Haskell for XML parsing) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-30 23:15 +0100
Re: Named function arguments (Was : C vs Haskell for XML parsing) Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-08-31 18:41 +0000
Re: Named function arguments (Was : C vs Haskell for XML parsing) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-31 12:43 +0200
Re: Named function arguments (Was : C vs Haskell for XML parsing) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-30 20:40 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-28 14:15 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-28 15:53 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-28 18:41 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-28 18:01 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-28 20:01 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-28 20:14 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-28 19:27 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-28 16:09 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-28 21:53 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-28 20:37 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-28 23:39 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-29 00:23 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-29 01:01 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-29 19:28 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-29 11:08 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-28 01:31 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 20:18 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-27 18:50 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 19:18 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-27 21:19 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-27 20:33 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 14:14 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 13:56 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-28 11:00 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 15:12 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-29 16:32 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-29 13:12 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-30 12:50 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 23:38 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-26 14:09 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-27 00:44 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 00:18 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-27 17:56 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-27 19:20 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 11:18 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-08-27 18:34 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 00:32 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-28 11:14 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-28 14:10 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-08-29 10:47 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-29 04:53 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-29 06:35 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-28 16:12 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-28 08:24 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-28 22:17 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 14:35 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 14:38 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-28 01:00 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-28 11:24 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 03:29 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-28 14:01 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 08:40 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-27 19:11 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-25 14:49 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-25 19:59 +0200
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-25 18:31 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 20:03 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 14:54 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-22 14:57 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-22 14:10 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-21 13:46 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 17:32 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 17:47 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-17 00:37 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 17:40 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-17 02:37 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-17 13:50 +0000
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-17 00:07 +0100
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 17:25 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 03:32 -0700
Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 03:42 -0700
Page 6 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 15 Next page →
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-27 15:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ucg9ou$1a678$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172861 |
On 27/08/2023 07:54, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 15:10:54 UTC+1, Scott Lurndal wrote: ... >> The sources I found indicate that it wasn't intended to be read by anyone >> other than the person who wrote it. >> > Just goes to show that you can believe everything you read. > Do you think that is remotely plausible? The Wikipedia article on Scriptio Continua gives precisely that explanation. That explanation is bracketed by two citations - it's not clear which of the two is most relevant: Moore, F. C. T. (2001). "Scribes and Texts: A Test Case for Models of Cultural Transmission". The Monist. 84 (3): 421. doi:10.5840/monist200184325. JSTOR 27903738. Retrieved March 24, 2023. Parkes, M. B. "Antiquity: Aids for Inexperienced Readers and the Prehistory of Punctuation". Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West. Berkeley: U of California, 1993. 10–11. I would not recommend dismissing that thesis out of hand without first following up on those citations and learning what reasons they give for believing it to be true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-28 00:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <24081c60-e8eb-467d-a5e2-3ac05104b03en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #172898 |
On Sunday, 27 August 2023 at 20:56:28 UTC+1, James Kuyper wrote: > On 27/08/2023 07:54, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 15:10:54 UTC+1, Scott Lurndal wrote: > ... > >> The sources I found indicate that it wasn't intended to be read by anyone > >> other than the person who wrote it. > >> > > Just goes to show that you can believe everything you read. > > Do you think that is remotely plausible? > The Wikipedia article on Scriptio Continua gives precisely that > explanation. That explanation is bracketed by two citations - it's not > clear which of the two is most relevant: > > > Moore, F. C. T. (2001). "Scribes and Texts: A Test Case for Models of > Cultural Transmission". The Monist. 84 (3): 421. > doi:10.5840/monist200184325. JSTOR 27903738. Retrieved March 24, 2023. > > Parkes, M. B. "Antiquity: Aids for Inexperienced Readers and the > Prehistory of Punctuation". Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the > History of Punctuation in the West. Berkeley: U of California, 1993. 10–11. > > I would not recommend dismissing that thesis out of hand without first > following up on those citations and learning what reasons they give for > believing it to be true. > Scriptio Continua was used for about 2,000 years. So it's not difficult to read. This is a knock-down, simple, almost irrefutable point. However it was eventually abandoned, and text with spaces is easier to read. That doesn't make text without spaces difficult to read. People work out complex and rather tendentious theories about why the ancients used Scriptio Continua and moderns use text separated by spaces. You need to understand the strength of the simple, obvious argument, before you try to snipe at it with sophisticated objections. M.B. Parkes was my teacher at Oxford by the way. He taught me this stuff.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-28 10:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uchmgi$1kdo7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172953 |
On 28/08/2023 09:42, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Sunday, 27 August 2023 at 20:56:28 UTC+1, James Kuyper wrote: >> On 27/08/2023 07:54, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 15:10:54 UTC+1, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> ... >>>> The sources I found indicate that it wasn't intended to be read by anyone >>>> other than the person who wrote it. >>>> >>> Just goes to show that you can believe everything you read. >>> Do you think that is remotely plausible? >> The Wikipedia article on Scriptio Continua gives precisely that >> explanation. That explanation is bracketed by two citations - it's not >> clear which of the two is most relevant: >> >> >> Moore, F. C. T. (2001). "Scribes and Texts: A Test Case for Models of >> Cultural Transmission". The Monist. 84 (3): 421. >> doi:10.5840/monist200184325. JSTOR 27903738. Retrieved March 24, 2023. >> >> Parkes, M. B. "Antiquity: Aids for Inexperienced Readers and the >> Prehistory of Punctuation". Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the >> History of Punctuation in the West. Berkeley: U of California, 1993. 10–11. >> >> I would not recommend dismissing that thesis out of hand without first >> following up on those citations and learning what reasons they give for >> believing it to be true. >> > Scriptio Continua was used for about 2,000 years. It was closer to 1000 years. There have been plenty of totally absurd ideas that have lasted far longer, and had far more consequence - the "four humors" theory of medicine being a prime example. Age is no indication of quality. And Scriptio Continua was by no means universal. The old Latin and Greek writings we have include some with spaces, and some with inter-word dots, as well as some without spacing of any kind. > So it's not difficult to read. Non-sequitor, and total nonsense. Text (in alphabetic script) without some kind of word spacing /is/ difficult to read. Once it became more important for many people to read each written text, legibility became more important compared to other factors (such as the cost of writing material), and word spacing very quickly overtook. It did so because it was easier to read - after all, there are no other benefits to word spacing. > This is a knock-down, simple, almost irrefutable point. No. It is bollocks. > > However it was eventually abandoned, "Eventually" ? Seriously? Do you have any concept about how rare it was to write anything at all (in Western Europe) before word spacing became ubiquitous? > and text with spaces is easier to read. Oh, so you /do/ understand a little! > That doesn't make text without spaces difficult to read. Yes, it is /very/ hard to read. Try it. > People work out complex > and rather tendentious theories about why the ancients used Scriptio Continua > and moderns use text separated by spaces. > Yes - people that are a lot smarter and more knowledgable than you, and that don't have some bizarre agenda to try to "prove" that their unique and illegible naming style is somehow better than what everyone else uses. > You need to understand the strength of the simple, obvious argument, before you > try to snipe at it with sophisticated objections. > > M.B. Parkes was my teacher at Oxford by the way. He taught me this stuff. Appeal to authority again? Except this time you have picked an "authority" that is meaningless to your audience, and who would probably be horrified to hear what a jumbled mess you have made of his teachings, and how you misuse your misunderstandings to justify bad coding (based on the Wikipedia article and references).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-28 02:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac994d20-9887-4f93-a9e2-ed78224a91can@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #172957 |
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 09:40:00 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > On 28/08/2023 09:42, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > People work out complex > > and rather tendentious theories about why the ancients used Scriptio Continua > > and moderns use text separated by spaces. > > > Yes - people that are a lot smarter and more knowledgable than you, and > that don't have some bizarre agenda to try to "prove" that their unique > and illegible naming style is somehow better than what everyone else uses. > > > You need to understand the strength of the simple, obvious argument, before you > > try to snipe at it with sophisticated objections. > > > A simple, straightforwards, obvious and natural point takes priority. Scriptio Continua was used for 2000 years (first texts about 700 BC or so, the last texts 13th century - I make that about 2000 years). So if it was difficut to read, would it have been used for so long? Obviously not. People would have used dots or vertical lines, both of which were used in very early Latin and Greek texts, and occasionally appear in later manuscripts, but weren't very popular. You have to learn how to draw conclusions from the information, not to trawl through material looking for reasons to object to the obvious, because you are naturally contentious in character. > > > M.B. Parkes was my teacher at Oxford by the way. He taught me this stuff. > > Appeal to authority again? Except this time you have picked an > "authority" that is meaningless to your audience, and who would probably > be horrified to hear what a jumbled mess you have made of his teachings, > and how you misuse your misunderstandings to justify bad coding (based > on the Wikipedia article and references). > Not really. When your old tutor's works come up, it's natural to mention that he was your tutor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-28 13:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uci0fa$1m3b3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172959 |
On 28/08/2023 11:03, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 09:40:00 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >> On 28/08/2023 09:42, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> >>> People work out complex >>> and rather tendentious theories about why the ancients used Scriptio Continua >>> and moderns use text separated by spaces. >>> >> Yes - people that are a lot smarter and more knowledgable than you, and >> that don't have some bizarre agenda to try to "prove" that their unique >> and illegible naming style is somehow better than what everyone else uses. >> >>> You need to understand the strength of the simple, obvious argument, before you >>> try to snipe at it with sophisticated objections. >>> >> > A simple, straightforwards, obvious and natural point takes priority. Do you agree that word break indication makes text easier to read? You agree therefore that continuous text is harder to read? You understand that word breaks were used from very early times in some texts? You understand therefore that continuous text was used despite more legible alternatives being available, and that in at least some cases, it is reasonable to suppose the writer was familiar with alternatives and could see that it was easier to read? This means that in at least some cases, the use of continuous text was motivated by factors that outweighed legibility - perhaps costs, perhaps intentionally making the text harder to read. I don't actually expect you to answer these questions - I expect more strawmen, more fallacious appeals to authority, more rambling stories, and no actual relevant points. But you might surprise me. > Scriptio Continua > was used for 2000 years (first texts about 700 BC or so, the last texts 13th century > - I make that about 2000 years). Older Greek was written with spaces, and a variety of dots was also used. Scriptio Continua was fairly common (but very far from universal) in Greek from perhaps about 400 BC, and Latin from around 100 BC to maybe 700 AD. It existed outside that range, but was a minor style - you don't get to write something now in Scriptio Continua and claim it is still in use in the 21st century. So around 1000 years is closer than 2000 years. If you want to say 1200 years, I'll not argue. > So if it was difficut to read, would it have been > used for so long? Obviously not. It /was/ (and is) difficult to read - it was used despite that. People do odd things all the time, and strange habits become popular for all sorts of reasons - despite common sense. > People would have used dots or vertical lines, > both of which were used in very early Latin and Greek texts, and occasionally appear > in later manuscripts, but weren't very popular. > > You have to learn how to draw conclusions from the information, not to trawl through > material looking for reasons to object to the obvious, because you are naturally > contentious in character. I have looked at the information - including what experts (not me, not you) have said on the matter. Two things are clear from the experts - continuous script was far from the universal norm, and that nobody is sure why it existed at all because everyone agrees it is significantly more difficult to read than when there are word breaks. It is a truly foolish viewpoint to think "people do/did this a lot, therefore it must be a good idea". I would suggest that /you/ have been drawing unwarranted conclusions from your data - despite cherry-picking your examples and authorities in an attempt to shore up your unique viewpoints. The only thing you can conclude from people writing without word breaks is that it was not /so/ hard to read that it could not be used, and that other considerations then outweighed ease of reading. >> >>> M.B. Parkes was my teacher at Oxford by the way. He taught me this stuff. >> >> Appeal to authority again? Except this time you have picked an >> "authority" that is meaningless to your audience, and who would probably >> be horrified to hear what a jumbled mess you have made of his teachings, >> and how you misuse your misunderstandings to justify bad coding (based >> on the Wikipedia article and references). >> > Not really. When your old tutor's works come up, it's natural to mention that > he was your tutor. What you consider "natural" is often at odds with what other people consider natural. But again, you are missing the point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-28 16:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20230828092201.893@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #172980 |
On 2023-08-28, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 28/08/2023 11:03, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 09:40:00 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >>> On 28/08/2023 09:42, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> >>>> People work out complex >>>> and rather tendentious theories about why the ancients used Scriptio Continua >>>> and moderns use text separated by spaces. >>>> >>> Yes - people that are a lot smarter and more knowledgable than you, and >>> that don't have some bizarre agenda to try to "prove" that their unique >>> and illegible naming style is somehow better than what everyone else uses. >>> >>>> You need to understand the strength of the simple, obvious argument, before you >>>> try to snipe at it with sophisticated objections. >>>> >>> >> A simple, straightforwards, obvious and natural point takes priority. > > Do you agree that word break indication makes text easier to read? The Japanese do. Books for small children have word breaks. In reading grownup Japanese, there are situations in which you have to hypothesize one of two or possibly more word boundaries to see which way it makes sense, based on your vocabulary. It doesn't help that Japanese has a large number of homonyms and situations in which words are fragments of unrelated words. Kanji helps in this regard; Japanese written out in kana with no spaces is more brutal. In the history of Fortran, the most idiotic thing was removing spaces before tokenizing it, resulting in the "famous" fact that DOI=1,10 must be parsed as the DO I = 1, 10 head of a loop. > This means that in at least some cases, the use of continuous text was > motivated by factors that outweighed legibility - perhaps costs, perhaps > intentionally making the text harder to read. Like, maybe, keeping the illiterate rabble illiterate, maintaining the status quo that only a tiny elite can read and write? -- 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 | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-28 10:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <72888dce-6d26-49bc-a911-95f87a039d19n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #173021 |
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 17:36:03 UTC+1, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > > > This means that in at least some cases, the use of continuous text was > > motivated by factors that outweighed legibility - perhaps costs, perhaps > > intentionally making the text harder to read. > Like, maybe, keeping the illiterate rabble illiterate, maintaining the > status quo that only a tiny elite can read and write? > Very implausible. It takes non-trivial education to teach people to.read and write, even with modern printed texts with spacing. Illiteracy rates are a scandal. The motive to raise the barrier even higher would have been very low. You just don't provide schools for the rabble, if you wish to keep them illiterate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-28 19:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ucim5r$1pvn0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #173021 |
On 28/08/2023 18:35, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2023-08-28, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> This means that in at least some cases, the use of continuous text was >> motivated by factors that outweighed legibility - perhaps costs, perhaps >> intentionally making the text harder to read. > > Like, maybe, keeping the illiterate rabble illiterate, maintaining the > status quo that only a tiny elite can read and write? > Yes. Writing without spaces isn't much harder than writing with spaces, but reading it is a lot harder. As a member of the elite, you don't want reading to be easier for others. Even within the elite classes, your ability to read unspaced texts quickly (or, more often, your ability to afford a scribe who could read it) was a status symbol. It was like serving larks' tongues at dinner - you don't do it because they are tasty or nutritious, you do it because they are expensive. I don't think anyone can say how much of an influence such reasons were, but it is certainly one of several reasons given by historians.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-28 12:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bac17518-cf9a-4f43-b86d-c5e468f437d5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #173034 |
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 18:40:26 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > On 28/08/2023 18:35, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > > On 2023-08-28, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: > > >> This means that in at least some cases, the use of continuous text was > >> motivated by factors that outweighed legibility - perhaps costs, perhaps > >> intentionally making the text harder to read. > > > > Like, maybe, keeping the illiterate rabble illiterate, maintaining the > > status quo that only a tiny elite can read and write? > > > Yes. Writing without spaces isn't much harder than writing with spaces, > but reading it is a lot harder. As a member of the elite, you don't > want reading to be easier for others. > > Even within the elite classes, your ability to read unspaced texts > quickly (or, more often, your ability to afford a scribe who could read > it) was a status symbol. It was like serving larks' tongues at dinner - > you don't do it because they are tasty or nutritious, you do it because > they are expensive. > > I don't think anyone can say how much of an influence such reasons were, > but it is certainly one of several reasons given by historians. > And then in the next paragraph, the same people claim that spaces were omitted to save expensive parchment. You don't deliberately make things difficult for yourself. These suggestions are all most implausible. We don't really know why the Greeks used scriptio continua whilst the Jews did not. We do know that they did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-28 22:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ucj0m0$1rpih$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #173046 |
On 28/08/2023 21:31, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 18:40:26 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >> On 28/08/2023 18:35, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2023-08-28, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> >>>> This means that in at least some cases, the use of continuous text was >>>> motivated by factors that outweighed legibility - perhaps costs, perhaps >>>> intentionally making the text harder to read. >>> >>> Like, maybe, keeping the illiterate rabble illiterate, maintaining the >>> status quo that only a tiny elite can read and write? >>> >> Yes. Writing without spaces isn't much harder than writing with spaces, >> but reading it is a lot harder. As a member of the elite, you don't >> want reading to be easier for others. >> >> Even within the elite classes, your ability to read unspaced texts >> quickly (or, more often, your ability to afford a scribe who could read >> it) was a status symbol. It was like serving larks' tongues at dinner - >> you don't do it because they are tasty or nutritious, you do it because >> they are expensive. >> >> I don't think anyone can say how much of an influence such reasons were, >> but it is certainly one of several reasons given by historians. >> > And then in the next paragraph, the same people claim that spaces were > omitted to save expensive parchment. Yes. Does it surprise you that there could be several reasons for something? Or that different people might have different reasons? Or that historians might have different theories? > You don't deliberately make things difficult for yourself. These suggestions > are all most implausible. They are all far more plausible than thinking it was easy to read. > We don't really know why the Greeks used scriptio continua whilst the Jews > did not. We do know that they did. Agreed. But we know some things that were not the reason for it. They did not omit spaces to make the writing more legible. That's a starting point at least.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-28 14:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e88888de-b29d-4361-8cc4-35c1e54950c5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #173074 |
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 21:39:42 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > On 28/08/2023 21:31, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 18:40:26 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > >> On 28/08/2023 18:35, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > >>> On 2023-08-28, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> > >>>> This means that in at least some cases, the use of continuous text was > >>>> motivated by factors that outweighed legibility - perhaps costs, perhaps > >>>> intentionally making the text harder to read. > >>> > >>> Like, maybe, keeping the illiterate rabble illiterate, maintaining the > >>> status quo that only a tiny elite can read and write? > >>> > >> Yes. Writing without spaces isn't much harder than writing with spaces, > >> but reading it is a lot harder. As a member of the elite, you don't > >> want reading to be easier for others. > >> > >> Even within the elite classes, your ability to read unspaced texts > >> quickly (or, more often, your ability to afford a scribe who could read > >> it) was a status symbol. It was like serving larks' tongues at dinner - > >> you don't do it because they are tasty or nutritious, you do it because > >> they are expensive. > >> > >> I don't think anyone can say how much of an influence such reasons were, > >> but it is certainly one of several reasons given by historians. > >> > > And then in the next paragraph, the same people claim that spaces were > > omitted to save expensive parchment. > Yes. Does it surprise you that there could be several reasons for > something? Or that different people might have different reasons? Or > that historians might have different theories? > To simultaneously argue that it was luxury consumption - deliberately making text hard to read to force one to employ a more expensive scribe and therefore flaunt one's wealth, and it was designed to save parchment is obviously self- contradictory. Since we know that parchment was expensive, and omiiting spaces obviously saved parchment, it is entirely reasonable to suggest that this was a factor. However most people who were interested in books in the ancient world were not short of money. > > > You don't deliberately make things difficult for yourself. These suggestions > > are all most implausible. > They are all far more plausible than thinking it was easy to read. > No, not at all. People read it for two thousand years. It's entirely plausible that it wasn't difficult, just not as easy as text with spaces. > > > We don't really know why the Greeks used scriptio continua whilst the Jews > > did not. We do know that they did. > Agreed. But we know some things that were not the reason for it. They > did not omit spaces to make the writing more legible. That's a starting > point at least. > The spaces weren't invented. The Jews had them. But the Greeks were reluctant to take ideas from the Jews. The codex wasn't invented either until the first century, but it's a lot easier to use than a scroll. However scrolls are not extraordinarily difficult to use. As I said, very early Greek texts and Latin texts before about 100 BC used dots to separate words. These were later omitted. The motive for that may well have been to improve legibility. Because spaces between words do make text easier to read, it doesn't follow that symbols between words do the same.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-28 16:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86msyawz1t.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #173078 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: [..ancient writing systems..] Malcolm, will you please stop going on about this crap? It has long since stopped being topical in this newsgroup.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-28 16:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20230828092105.938@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #172953 |
On 2023-08-28, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: > Scriptio Continua was used for about 2,000 years. So it's not difficult to read. Say, what proportion of the populade was literate over that period? -- 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 | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-28 10:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5b5e698f-8646-4195-9032-e49895a285efn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #173020 |
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 17:21:58 UTC+1, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2023-08-28, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Scriptio Continua was used for about 2,000 years. So it's not difficult to read. > Say, what proportion of the populade was literate over that period? > Very low. Which is probably part of the reason. Most people either couldn't read and write at all, or were professionals whose job it was to work with books. When in the late Middle Ages knights and merchants and similar people began to become literate, but were occasional readers and writers rather than doing it full time, then it would have been more important that text was easy to read. But the point I was making was that whilst professional readers might have tolerated a bit of extra difficulty, they wouldn't have tolerated text which was very difficult to read, for a period of 2000 years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-28 14:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87ttsibzul.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #172953 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> Scriptio Continua was used for about 2,000 years. So it's not
> difficult to read. This is a knock-down, simple, almost irrefutable
> point.
Since this point is "almost irrefutable", I suggest we all stop
wasting our time trying to refute it. Nobody other than Malcolm
takes it seriously, and Malcolm will not change his mind.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-28 14:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87v8cybzw1.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #172953 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> Scriptio Continua was used for about 2,000 years. So it's not
> difficult to read. This is a knock-down, simple, almost irrefutable
> point.
Since this point is "almost irrefutable", I suggest we all stop
wasting our time trying to refute it. Nobody other than Malcolm
takes it seriously, and Malcolm will not change his mind.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-28 14:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <iY1HM.144951$ftCb.119573@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #172898 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: >On 27/08/2023 07:54, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 15:10:54 UTC+1, Scott Lurndal wrote: >... >>> The sources I found indicate that it wasn't intended to be read by anyone >>> other than the person who wrote it. >>> >> Just goes to show that you can believe everything you read. >> Do you think that is remotely plausible? > >The Wikipedia article on Scriptio Continua gives precisely that >explanation. That explanation is bracketed by two citations - it's not >clear which of the two is most relevant: > > >Moore, F. C. T. (2001). "Scribes and Texts: A Test Case for Models of >Cultural Transmission". The Monist. 84 (3): 421. >doi:10.5840/monist200184325. JSTOR 27903738. Retrieved March 24, 2023. > >Parkes, M. B. "Antiquity: Aids for Inexperienced Readers and the >Prehistory of Punctuation". Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the >History of Punctuation in the West. Berkeley: U of California, 1993. 10–11. > >I would not recommend dismissing that thesis out of hand without first >following up on those citations and learning what reasons they give for >believing it to be true. And the undercurrent of my post was the implication that if Malcolm doesn't care about other people reading his code, he's free to use 'scriptio continua' as his guide for identifier naming.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-26 19:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ucdcsr$mj8h$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172809 |
On 26/08/2023 11:52, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 12:31:44 UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes: >>> On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 08:46:22 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >> [...] >>>> The only thing /wrong/ - and pretty much everyone thinks it is wrong - >>>> would be to call it "multiplymatrixwithvector". >>>> >>> Well Caesar disagreed. >> Let's drop the lengthy discussions of ancient writing systems, shall we? >> (And David, please stop encouraging them.) >> > For about two thousand years, text was written without spaces. Any rational > person, to whom this was pointed out, would accept that that is prima facie > evidence that it is not that difficult to read. However David Brown has got to > try to make out that the reason the style was adopted was to make it harder > for slaves to read confidential documents. It's beyond absurd. I think I am beginning to understand. You can't read, or won't read, so it doesn't matter to you whether there are spaces or not. I enjoy talking about history, and I happen to know a bit about writing systems - modern and outdated. I had hoped, since you know a bit of Hebrew and have looked at old texts, that I might have learned something new. But I was wrong - you have some basic knowledge combined with some flat-earth ideas, and you haven't actually bothered reading what I wrote. So time to stop, I think.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-26 23:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bc75d61f-66a7-4132-9fd0-7c3eda49fe8bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #172825 |
On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 18:31:21 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > On 26/08/2023 11:52, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 12:31:44 UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes: > >>> On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 08:46:22 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > >> [...] > >>>> The only thing /wrong/ - and pretty much everyone thinks it is wrong - > >>>> would be to call it "multiplymatrixwithvector". > >>>> > >>> Well Caesar disagreed. > >> Let's drop the lengthy discussions of ancient writing systems, shall we? > >> (And David, please stop encouraging them.) > >> > > For about two thousand years, text was written without spaces. Any rational > > person, to whom this was pointed out, would accept that that is prima facie > > evidence that it is not that difficult to read. However David Brown has got to > > try to make out that the reason the style was adopted was to make it harder > > for slaves to read confidential documents. It's beyond absurd. > I think I am beginning to understand. You can't read, or won't read, so > it doesn't matter to you whether there are spaces or not. > > I enjoy talking about history, and I happen to know a bit about writing > systems - modern and outdated. I had hoped, since you know a bit of > Hebrew and have looked at old texts, that I might have learned something > new. But I was wrong - you have some basic knowledge combined with some > flat-earth ideas, and you haven't actually bothered reading what I > wrote. So time to stop, I think. > I know. But it irritates Keith. And it's very tangential to C, so he has a case. Text was written without spaces until the practice died out in the late medieval period. It's not difficult to read, but silent reading was rare and most people read aloud. Spaces make text easier for silent readers to read. Underscores - the jury is out, but you can't simply assume that, because spaces make text easier to read, underscores will also do so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-26 23:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <uceq43$127sr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172862 |
On 8/26/2023 11:08 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 18:31:21 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >> On 26/08/2023 11:52, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 12:31:44 UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 08:46:22 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>>> The only thing /wrong/ - and pretty much everyone thinks it is wrong - >>>>>> would be to call it "multiplymatrixwithvector". >>>>>> >>>>> Well Caesar disagreed. >>>> Let's drop the lengthy discussions of ancient writing systems, shall we? >>>> (And David, please stop encouraging them.) >>>> >>> For about two thousand years, text was written without spaces. Any rational >>> person, to whom this was pointed out, would accept that that is prima facie >>> evidence that it is not that difficult to read. However David Brown has got to >>> try to make out that the reason the style was adopted was to make it harder >>> for slaves to read confidential documents. It's beyond absurd. >> I think I am beginning to understand. You can't read, or won't read, so >> it doesn't matter to you whether there are spaces or not. >> >> I enjoy talking about history, and I happen to know a bit about writing >> systems - modern and outdated. I had hoped, since you know a bit of >> Hebrew and have looked at old texts, that I might have learned something >> new. But I was wrong - you have some basic knowledge combined with some >> flat-earth ideas, and you haven't actually bothered reading what I >> wrote. So time to stop, I think. >> > I know. But it irritates Keith. And it's very tangential to C, so he has a case. > > Text was written without spaces until the practice died out in the late medieval > period. It's not difficult to read, but silent reading was rare and most people > read aloud. Spaces make text easier for silent readers to read. Underscores - > the jury is out, but you can't simply assume that, because spaces make text > easier to read, underscores will also do so. > ever_use_posix_api_s ? ;^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web