Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #399456 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-05-27 19:53 +0200 |
| Last post | 2026-05-30 11:18 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 250 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
this girl calls c ugly fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 19:53 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 20:15 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 18:49 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-28 04:53 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 02:35 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-28 23:32 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 20:07 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 11:48 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-28 09:18 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 04:57 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-28 23:35 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 09:52 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 05:20 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-29 13:22 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 15:16 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-30 13:52 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-30 14:40 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-30 16:36 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-30 15:48 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 11:14 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-31 13:25 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 22:14 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 15:22 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-30 03:49 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 12:47 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 09:56 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 11:00 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 17:12 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 14:07 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-28 23:54 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 10:02 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 12:19 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 14:46 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 14:22 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 17:15 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-29 15:59 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 17:12 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 18:48 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 19:09 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 22:00 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 22:14 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 12:09 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 17:05 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 18:34 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-05-29 19:29 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 18:53 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 12:28 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 20:49 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 22:03 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 13:56 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 22:54 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 15:52 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-29 20:31 -0400
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-30 02:03 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 19:02 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-30 12:12 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-30 12:29 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-30 13:56 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-30 16:43 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-31 03:37 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-30 19:53 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 12:16 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 11:47 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 12:55 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-05-31 09:12 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 11:49 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-31 11:10 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 13:18 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-31 10:24 -0400
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 17:35 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-31 12:46 -0400
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 22:24 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-31 18:26 -0400
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 08:28 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-31 15:54 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 08:39 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 02:33 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 11:48 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-06-02 06:37 -0400
Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-02 05:06 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 16:28 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-04 03:37 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-04 16:31 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 13:36 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-04 23:49 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 18:04 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-05 10:41 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 05:35 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-02 06:29 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 16:10 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 15:29 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-05 06:41 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 13:59 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 13:05 +0000
Parentheses (was: this girl calls c ugly) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-02 14:38 +0100
Re: Parentheses (was: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 15:19 +0000
Re: Parentheses antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-03 22:30 +0000
Re: Parentheses Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-03 16:24 -0700
Re: Parentheses antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-04 02:03 +0000
Re: Parentheses Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 01:12 +0100
Re: Parentheses antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-04 01:58 +0000
Re: Parentheses Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 11:37 +0100
Re: Parentheses cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-04 10:51 +0000
Re: Parentheses Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 12:47 +0100
Re: Parentheses Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-04 14:57 +0200
Re: Parentheses cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-04 14:31 +0000
[OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 15:54 +0200
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-02 15:19 +0100
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 15:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 17:39 +0200
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 16:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-02 21:33 +0000
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 14:43 -0700
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-06-02 17:08 +0000
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 19:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-04 00:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 15:39 -0700
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-03 13:14 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-02 15:10 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 15:31 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-31 10:15 -0400
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 16:29 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-31 03:45 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-31 04:02 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-31 09:04 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-31 18:11 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-31 19:34 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-31 19:10 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-01 11:12 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 12:36 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 14:26 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-04 02:34 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 12:40 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-04 14:35 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 14:18 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-04 15:47 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-04 15:57 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-04 16:27 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 16:46 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-04 20:15 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-04 20:54 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 20:29 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 14:06 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 22:47 +0100
Famous (hopefully last) words [on this topic] Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-05 00:27 +0200
Re: Famous (hopefully last) words [on this topic] Bad Post <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-05 01:20 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 16:09 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-05 00:44 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 17:26 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-05 12:58 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-05 02:47 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-05 00:53 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-05 11:04 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-05 05:34 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 15:25 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-05 09:29 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-05 12:39 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-05 15:42 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-04 16:18 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 17:23 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-04 16:47 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 19:57 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-04 20:34 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 22:28 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-04 21:58 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-06-04 23:25 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-05 02:49 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-04 19:47 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-04 21:04 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2026-06-04 19:13 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-05 10:34 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 12:11 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-06-04 16:33 -0400
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 14:16 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-05 00:02 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 18:36 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-05 02:54 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-05 05:49 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2026-06-04 18:45 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-04 20:19 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-04 20:31 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-04 20:41 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-04 20:49 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-05 00:03 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-05 00:18 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-05 03:02 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-05 14:04 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 11:59 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-04 15:21 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-04 06:38 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 09:52 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 02:42 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 12:50 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-01 11:47 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 12:55 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 14:39 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 15:11 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 08:41 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 02:07 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 11:38 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 05:01 -0700
It is not futile to change the subject line (Was: this girl calls c ugly) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-06-02 12:39 +0000
Re: It is not futile to change the subject line (Was: this girl calls c ugly) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-06-02 12:42 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 11:46 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-02 11:09 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 05:25 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-02 14:20 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 15:12 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-02 04:16 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-01 15:23 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 16:06 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-01 23:24 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 11:35 +0200
Operator precedence in other (non-C, but "C-like") languages (Was: something about a girl) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-06-02 12:36 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-01 11:04 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 14:04 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-01 18:48 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-01 21:04 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 09:17 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 09:09 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 12:07 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 14:37 +0200
Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-02 15:06 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-04 03:58 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-31 19:11 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-31 16:08 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-31 16:32 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-31 17:12 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-30 14:07 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 18:10 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 19:18 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 22:17 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 21:47 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-29 15:57 -0400
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 22:34 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-29 23:18 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-30 01:26 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-30 04:25 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-30 12:01 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-31 00:29 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-31 10:59 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-01 00:33 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-01 02:26 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 13:24 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 08:09 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 04:15 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 14:58 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-30 01:04 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-29 23:20 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-05-30 11:18 +0200
Page 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-04 20:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10vshli$jcrh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #399690 |
On 04/06/2026 17:46, Bart wrote:
> On 04/06/2026 15:27, David Brown wrote:
>> On 04/06/2026 15:18, Bart wrote:
>
>>>> It is an objective fact, therefore, that "(a*a) + (b*b)" has more
>>>> parentheses than needed in the context of most programming languages.
>>>>
>>>> "(a*a) + (b*b) has too many parentheses", on the other hand, is a
>>>> purely subjective opinion.
>>>
>>> So, you're arguing 'more than needed' is a completely different thing
>>> from 'too many'.
>>
>> Of course they are different things - albeit related things, rather
>> than /completely/ different. One is a question of fact, the other a
>> question of opinion, and they do not always coincide.
>>
>> It is a fact that "a << (b + c)" has more parentheses than needed.
>> But I think we are both of the opinion that it does not have "too
>> many" parentheses - it has an appropriate number of parentheses.
>
> So saying 'too many' of something will be a subjective opinion? OK, so
> let's try compiling this bit of C:
>
> void F(int, int);
>
> int main() {
> F(1, 2, 3);
> }
>
> 8 out of 9 compilers reported 'Too many arguments'.
>
> According to you, that's only their subjective opinion, not an objective
> fact?
Again - /please/ stop trying to guess what people say or put words in
their mouths. I can't remember ever seeing you do so accurately.
"Too many parentheses" is subjective, because they affect the ease of
reading the code as a human reader. "Too many arguments in a function
call" affects the semantics of the code - it is objective fact. It is
not something that involves human opinions.
I think it would be easier to explain this to my cat than to you.
Simple logic seems to be completely beyond your grasp.
>>
>> My mind-reading skills are not that well developed.
>
> It didn't stop you giving an opinion about what you thought he meant!
>
I did not claim to know, or even assume, what he /meant/ - I commented
on what he /said/. That was factual. And I made a comment on what I
/thought/ it was likely that he meant (or did not mean). That was
opinion, and clearly so. The words are in the post for all to see, the
thoughts behind those words are not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-04 20:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10vsjn1$jl9m$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #399699 |
On 04/06/2026 19:54, David Brown wrote:
> On 04/06/2026 17:46, Bart wrote:
>> On 04/06/2026 15:27, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 04/06/2026 15:18, Bart wrote:
>>
>>>>> It is an objective fact, therefore, that "(a*a) + (b*b)" has more
>>>>> parentheses than needed in the context of most programming languages.
>>>>>
>>>>> "(a*a) + (b*b) has too many parentheses", on the other hand, is a
>>>>> purely subjective opinion.
>>>>
>>>> So, you're arguing 'more than needed' is a completely different
>>>> thing from 'too many'.
>>>
>>> Of course they are different things - albeit related things, rather
>>> than /completely/ different. One is a question of fact, the other a
>>> question of opinion, and they do not always coincide.
>>>
>>> It is a fact that "a << (b + c)" has more parentheses than needed.
>>> But I think we are both of the opinion that it does not have "too
>>> many" parentheses - it has an appropriate number of parentheses.
>>
>> So saying 'too many' of something will be a subjective opinion? OK, so
>> let's try compiling this bit of C:
>>
>> void F(int, int);
>>
>> int main() {
>> F(1, 2, 3);
>> }
>>
>> 8 out of 9 compilers reported 'Too many arguments'.
>>
>> According to you, that's only their subjective opinion, not an
>> objective fact?
>
> Again - /please/ stop trying to guess what people say or put words in
> their mouths. I can't remember ever seeing you do so accurately.
This is what you actually said:
> It is an objective fact, therefore, that "(a*a) + (b*b)" has more
> parentheses than needed in the context of most programming languages.
>
> "(a*a) + (b*b) has too many parentheses", on the other hand, is a purely
> subjective opinion. Even if it is true that this is "commonly agreed
> to" (and AFAIK you have no basis for that claim), that would still be a
> subjective opinion - no matter how common that opinion is.
You're saying that:
* "more than needed" is objective
* "too many" is subjective
Even though both are about exactly the same thing: superfluous but
harmless parentheses in an expression.
So you are picking on my choice of words, apparently in order to win
some stupid argument on the internet. Even though the same "too many"
phrase used elsewhere can be objective, according to you.
This looks like a pattern: people here seem to have remarkable trouble
debating with me on actual ideas and resort instead to find hidden
significance in the some choice of words I'd happen to use.
> "Too many parentheses" is subjective, because they affect the ease of
> reading the code as a human reader.
And 'more than needed' isn't that?!
Why don't you write a bunch of expressions with variable numbers of
parentheses, and against each tick off whether 'more than needed' and
'too many' is true.
I'd be interested in whether there would be any difference in the two
columns, and if there is one, as what point they would diverge.
No, this is just getting ludicrous and suggests not wanting to tackle
the real subject: should people write '(a << b) & c' or 'a << b & c'?
Tim Rentsch I'm sure will prefer the latter because 99.9% of C
programmers are machines, according to him.
Presumably, the same 99.9% will not use indentation, and will write
their programs all on one line anyway, because it is still after all
completely unambiguous according to the C standard!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-04 14:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10vspcf$lkmu$2@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #399705 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 04/06/2026 19:54, David Brown wrote:
[...]
>> Again - /please/ stop trying to guess what people say or put words
>> in their mouths. I can't remember ever seeing you do so accurately.
>
> This is what you actually said:
>
>> It is an objective fact, therefore, that "(a*a) + (b*b)" has more
>> parentheses than needed in the context of most programming languages.
>>
>> "(a*a) + (b*b) has too many parentheses", on the other hand, is a purely
>> subjective opinion. Even if it is true that this is "commonly agreed
>> to" (and AFAIK you have no basis for that claim), that would still be a
>> subjective opinion - no matter how common that opinion is.
>
> You're saying that:
>
> * "more than needed" is objective
> * "too many" is subjective
Stop it. He's not saying that.
You're taking phrases out of context and making false claims that the
full statement was far more general than it actually was.
Nobody said or implied that "too many" is always subjective.
>> "Too many parentheses" is subjective, because they affect the ease
>> of reading the code as a human reader.
>
> And 'more than needed' isn't that?!
More than needed *for what*? Without that context, we can't tell
whether "more than needed" is subjective or objective.
You know all this.
[...]
> No, this is just getting ludicrous and suggests not wanting to tackle
> the real subject: should people write '(a << b) & c' or 'a << b & c'?
Oh, is that the real subject?
I presume you prefer `(a << b) & c` to `a << b & c`.
So do I.
Others might or might not have different opinions. If that was the
"real subject", we've wasted a lot of time debating the difference
between subjectivity and objectivity.
> Tim Rentsch I'm sure will prefer the latter because 99.9% of C
> programmers are machines, according to him.
Tim didn't say or imply that.
> Presumably, the same 99.9% will not use indentation, and will write
> their programs all on one line anyway, because it is still after all
> completely unambiguous according to the C standard!
Of course not, because 99.9% of C programmers are not idiots..
Your record of guessing incorrectly what other people think is
unbroken. I suggest you stop trying.
If people are having a debate about some controversial topic, have
you found that arguing against some unrealistic parody of the other
person's position is ever useful (unless your goal is to prolong
the debate)? Stop telling people what they think.
Tim probably prefers fewer parentheses than most C programmers do.
You probably prefer more. There *might* be an interesting discussion
to be had about that difference, but I doubt it.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-04 22:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10vsrpo$men2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #399714 |
On 04/06/2026 22:06, Keith Thompson wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 04/06/2026 19:54, David Brown wrote: > [...] >>> Again - /please/ stop trying to guess what people say or put words >>> in their mouths. I can't remember ever seeing you do so accurately. >> >> This is what you actually said: >> >>> It is an objective fact, therefore, that "(a*a) + (b*b)" has more >>> parentheses than needed in the context of most programming languages. >>> >>> "(a*a) + (b*b) has too many parentheses", on the other hand, is a purely >>> subjective opinion. Even if it is true that this is "commonly agreed >>> to" (and AFAIK you have no basis for that claim), that would still be a >>> subjective opinion - no matter how common that opinion is. >> >> You're saying that: >> >> * "more than needed" is objective >> * "too many" is subjective > > Stop it. He's not saying that. That is EXACTLY what he's saying: "It is an OBJECTIVE fact .. has more ... than needed", and: "has too many ... is ... purely subjective". > > You're taking phrases out of context and making false claims that the > full statement was far more general than it actually was. And this is exactly what other people are doing. So I used TOO MANY instead of MORE THAN NEEDED to describe the exact same phenomenon. (1) Why are you all making such a big fucking deal of this? (2) Why are you all sticking up for each other? (3) Why don't you this discuss the fucking subject instead of going down these pointless rabbit holes? > Nobody said or implied that "too many" is always subjective. > >>> "Too many parentheses" is subjective, because they affect the ease >>> of reading the code as a human reader. >> >> And 'more than needed' isn't that?! > > More than needed *for what*? Without that context, we can't tell > whether "more than needed" is subjective or objective. Jesus, the subthread has been going long enough. It is abourt how many brackets are too many, more than needed, superfluous to requirements, etc etc etc. Yes, I've finally broken and refuse to call round brackets 'parentheses' anymore. Except that I really no longer care. Do whatever the hell you like with your fucking language. This is not a civil discussion forum, it is a bear-pit. > You know all this. > > [...] > >> No, this is just getting ludicrous and suggests not wanting to tackle >> the real subject: should people write '(a << b) & c' or 'a << b & c'? > > Oh, is that the real subject? > > I presume you prefer `(a << b) & c` to `a << b & c`. > > So do I. > > Others might or might not have different opinions. If that was the > "real subject", we've wasted a lot of time debating the difference > between subjectivity and objectivity. > >> Tim Rentsch I'm sure will prefer the latter because 99.9% of C >> programmers are machines, according to him. > > Tim didn't say or imply that. So what was his 99.9% all about? Nobody has a clue, except they are certain that what I think it is is wrong! >> Presumably, the same 99.9% will not use indentation, and will write >> their programs all on one line anyway, because it is still after all >> completely unambiguous according to the C standard! > > Of course not, because 99.9% of C programmers are not idiots.. > Your record of guessing incorrectly what other people think is > unbroken. I suggest you stop trying. This is what Tim said: "If someone really can't learn the rules of expression syntax for the language they are using, they should be advised to try a different language, or perhaps give up programming altogether. It's silly to worry about something that 999 people out of a 1000 (and the actual numbers are undoubtedly much higher) are able to navigate without difficulty." It sounds to me very much as though he expects 99.9% to know all C's precedences by heart and to never need to use superfluous brackets (or 'more than needed if 'superfluous' is still to subjective). But of course, I am wrong and he is right, and you will defend his view (a subjective one) to the death.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-05 00:27 +0200 |
| Subject | Famous (hopefully last) words [on this topic] |
| Message-ID | <10vsu3k$fm4o$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #399717 |
On 2026-06-04 23:47, Bart wrote: > > Jesus, the subthread has been going long enough. I'd dare to say that there's an extremely high chance that *everyone* in this group is agreeing with you on this statement! - I suggest pinning it at the wall. :-) Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bad Post <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-05 01:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Famous (hopefully last) words [on this topic] |
| Message-ID | <10vt4vc$30gmr$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #399721 |
On 04/06/2026 23:27, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 2026-06-04 23:47, Bart wrote: >> >> Jesus, the subthread has been going long enough. > > I'd dare to say that there's an extremely high chance > that *everyone* in this group is agreeing with you on > this statement! - I suggest pinning it at the wall. :-) > > Janis The problem with having many ugly girls is that people talk about them. People (mainly men) continue to talk about them out of frustration at not having enough beautiful women around!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-04 16:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10vt0jc$o2d8$1@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #399717 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 04/06/2026 22:06, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> On 04/06/2026 19:54, David Brown wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Again - /please/ stop trying to guess what people say or put words
>>>> in their mouths. I can't remember ever seeing you do so accurately.
>>>
>>> This is what you actually said:
>>>
>>>> It is an objective fact, therefore, that "(a*a) + (b*b)" has more
>>>> parentheses than needed in the context of most programming languages.
>>>>
>>>> "(a*a) + (b*b) has too many parentheses", on the other hand, is a purely
>>>> subjective opinion. Even if it is true that this is "commonly agreed
>>>> to" (and AFAIK you have no basis for that claim), that would still be a
>>>> subjective opinion - no matter how common that opinion is.
>>>
>>> You're saying that:
>>>
>>> * "more than needed" is objective
>>> * "too many" is subjective
>> Stop it. He's not saying that.
>
> That is EXACTLY what he's saying: "It is an OBJECTIVE fact .. has more
> ... than needed", and:
>
> "has too many ... is ... purely subjective".
>
>> You're taking phrases out of context and making false claims that the
>> full statement was far more general than it actually was.
>
> And this is exactly what other people are doing.
Taken literally, your statement implies that you admit that that's
what you're doing. Is that what you meant? If so, I suggest you
*stop* making such false claims. If not, what did you actually mean?
> So I used TOO MANY instead of MORE THAN NEEDED to describe the exact
> same phenomenon.
That's not the problem. There is an actual meaningful distinction
here, between what's needed by the compiler and what's useful to
improve clarity for human readers. I have found some of what you've
written to be unclear about that distinction.
Can we agree that the question of whether parentheses in a C
expression are necessary to the compiler can be answered objectively?
Can we agree that the question of whether extra parentheses are
helpful to a human reader is at least partly subjective, and
varies from case to case? Is there really anything else that we
fundamentally disagree about?
> (1) Why are you all making such a big fucking deal of this?
Why are you?
> (2) Why are you all sticking up for each other?
Most of us happen to agree with each other on most of the points being
discussed. I'm not "sticking up" for anyone. I have expressed
disagreement in this thread with people other than you.
> (3) Why don't you this discuss the fucking subject instead of going
> down these pointless rabbit holes?
OK, what subject do you want to discuss? Please be clear and specific.
[...]
> It is abourt how many brackets are too many, more than needed,
> superfluous to requirements, etc etc etc.
There is of course no objective answer to that, only opinions.
A substantial percentage of this thread has been about exactly
what you now say you want it to be about. I've said myself that
I think the parentheses in `(a*a) + (b*b)` are excessive, but the
parentheses in `(a << b) & c` are appropriate.
↑
↑
↑
That (pointing to the prevous paragraph) was me talking about exactly
what you want us to be talking about. Consider acknowledging that.
[...]
>>> Presumably, the same 99.9% will not use indentation, and will write
>>> their programs all on one line anyway, because it is still after all
>>> completely unambiguous according to the C standard!
>>
>> Of course not, because 99.9% of C programmers are not idiots..
>> Your record of guessing incorrectly what other people think is
>> unbroken. I suggest you stop trying.
>
> This is what Tim said:
>
> "If someone really can't learn the rules of expression syntax for the
> language they are using, they should be advised to try a different
> language, or perhaps give up programming altogether. It's silly to
> worry about something that 999 people out of a 1000 (and the actual
> numbers are undoubtedly much higher) are able to navigate without
> difficulty."
And you inferred from that that he opposes using indentation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Or maybe you were being figurative, but I honestly can't tell.
> It sounds to me very much as though he expects 99.9% to know all C's
> precedences by heart and to never need to use superfluous brackets (or
> 'more than needed if 'superfluous' is still to subjective).
>
> But of course, I am wrong and he is right, and you will defend his
> view (a subjective one) to the death.
Nope.
I don't know whether that's his opinion or not. Perhaps you haven't
noticed that I don't always agree with Tim. I don't know whether
he thinks that the parentheses in `(a << b) & c` are excessive, or
whether he finds `a << b & c` clearer. He can certainly express his
own opinion if he wants to. If he thinks (subjectively) that those
parentheses are excessive, then I (subjectively) disagree with him.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-05 00:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10vt2ld$o8g3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #399723 |
On 05/06/2026 00:09, Keith Thompson wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 04/06/2026 22:06, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> On 04/06/2026 19:54, David Brown wrote: >>> [...] >>>>> Again - /please/ stop trying to guess what people say or put words >>>>> in their mouths. I can't remember ever seeing you do so accurately. >>>> >>>> This is what you actually said: >>>> >>>>> It is an objective fact, therefore, that "(a*a) + (b*b)" has more >>>>> parentheses than needed in the context of most programming languages. >>>>> >>>>> "(a*a) + (b*b) has too many parentheses", on the other hand, is a purely >>>>> subjective opinion. Even if it is true that this is "commonly agreed >>>>> to" (and AFAIK you have no basis for that claim), that would still be a >>>>> subjective opinion - no matter how common that opinion is. >>>> >>>> You're saying that: >>>> >>>> * "more than needed" is objective >>>> * "too many" is subjective >>> Stop it. He's not saying that. >> >> That is EXACTLY what he's saying: "It is an OBJECTIVE fact .. has more >> ... than needed", and: >> >> "has too many ... is ... purely subjective". >> >>> You're taking phrases out of context and making false claims that the >>> full statement was far more general than it actually was. >> >> And this is exactly what other people are doing. > > Taken literally, your statement implies that you admit that that's > what you're doing. Is that what you meant? If so, I suggest you > *stop* making such false claims. If not, what did you actually mean? > >> So I used TOO MANY instead of MORE THAN NEEDED to describe the exact >> same phenomenon. > > That's not the problem. There is an actual meaningful distinction > here, between what's needed by the compiler and what's useful to > improve clarity for human readers. I have found some of what you've > written to be unclear about that distinction. > > Can we agree that the question of whether parentheses in a C > expression are necessary to the compiler can be answered objectively? > Can we agree that the question of whether extra parentheses are > helpful to a human reader is at least partly subjective, and > varies from case to case? Is there really anything else that we > fundamentally disagree about? > >> (1) Why are you all making such a big fucking deal of this? > > Why are you? I didn't start this business of something being subjective or objective, or suggesting than one turn of phrase to discuss the same thing was subjective and the other objective (implying that a subjective opinion had less worth). TR started that and several people backed him up. Myself I wouldn't even use those terms. My point was that some overuses of () for commonly known precedences are more overkill than others. If that's subjective then so be it; it is not some fundamental law of the universe. I would just call it common sense. > Why are you? Since you ask, I was defending my point of view then got sidetracked by this subjective/objective nonsense. I notice that TR has disappeared from this subthread.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-04 17:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10vt533$p2nn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #399724 |
On 6/4/2026 4:44 PM, Bart wrote: > On 05/06/2026 00:09, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> On 04/06/2026 22:06, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>>> On 04/06/2026 19:54, David Brown wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>>> Again - /please/ stop trying to guess what people say or put words >>>>>> in their mouths. I can't remember ever seeing you do so accurately. >>>>> >>>>> This is what you actually said: >>>>> >>>>>> It is an objective fact, therefore, that "(a*a) + (b*b)" has more >>>>>> parentheses than needed in the context of most programming languages. >>>>>> >>>>>> "(a*a) + (b*b) has too many parentheses", on the other hand, is a >>>>>> purely >>>>>> subjective opinion. Even if it is true that this is "commonly agreed >>>>>> to" (and AFAIK you have no basis for that claim), that would still >>>>>> be a >>>>>> subjective opinion - no matter how common that opinion is. >>>>> >>>>> You're saying that: >>>>> >>>>> * "more than needed" is objective >>>>> * "too many" is subjective >>>> Stop it. He's not saying that. >>> >>> That is EXACTLY what he's saying: "It is an OBJECTIVE fact .. has more >>> ... than needed", and: >>> >>> "has too many ... is ... purely subjective". >>> >>>> You're taking phrases out of context and making false claims that the >>>> full statement was far more general than it actually was. >>> >>> And this is exactly what other people are doing. >> >> Taken literally, your statement implies that you admit that that's >> what you're doing. Is that what you meant? If so, I suggest you >> *stop* making such false claims. If not, what did you actually mean? >> >>> So I used TOO MANY instead of MORE THAN NEEDED to describe the exact >>> same phenomenon. >> >> That's not the problem. There is an actual meaningful distinction >> here, between what's needed by the compiler and what's useful to >> improve clarity for human readers. I have found some of what you've >> written to be unclear about that distinction. >> >> Can we agree that the question of whether parentheses in a C >> expression are necessary to the compiler can be answered objectively? >> Can we agree that the question of whether extra parentheses are >> helpful to a human reader is at least partly subjective, and >> varies from case to case? Is there really anything else that we >> fundamentally disagree about? >> >>> (1) Why are you all making such a big fucking deal of this? >> >> Why are you? > > I didn't start this business of something being subjective or objective, > or suggesting than one turn of phrase to discuss the same thing was > subjective and the other objective (implying that a subjective opinion > had less worth). TR started that and several people backed him up. > > Myself I wouldn't even use those terms. My point was that some overuses > of () for commonly known precedences are more overkill than others. > > If that's subjective then so be it; it is not some fundamental law of > the universe. I would just call it common sense. > > > Why are you? > > Since you ask, I was defending my point of view then got sidetracked by > this subjective/objective nonsense. I notice that TR has disappeared > from this subthread. > Wrt the number of ()'s? Might as well go to sleep with the following song playing in the background: (The Fate of Ophelia - Taylor Swift (Lyrics) Charlie Puth ft. Selena Gomez, the weekd, ariana grande) https://youtu.be/yleL-JbEHc8?list=RDyleL-JbEHc8
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-05 12:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10vuh5o$330fv$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #399730 |
Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/4/2026 4:44 PM, Bart wrote:
>> On 05/06/2026 00:09, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>> On 04/06/2026 22:06, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 04/06/2026 19:54, David Brown wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> Again - /please/ stop trying to guess what people say or put words
>>>>>>> in their mouths. I can't remember ever seeing you do so accurately.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is what you actually said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is an objective fact, therefore, that "(a*a) + (b*b)" has more
>>>>>>> parentheses than needed in the context of most programming languages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "(a*a) + (b*b) has too many parentheses", on the other hand, is a
>>>>>>> purely
>>>>>>> subjective opinion. Even if it is true that this is "commonly agreed
>>>>>>> to" (and AFAIK you have no basis for that claim), that would still
>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>> subjective opinion - no matter how common that opinion is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're saying that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * "more than needed" is objective
>>>>>> * "too many" is subjective
>>>>> Stop it. He's not saying that.
>>>>
>>>> That is EXACTLY what he's saying: "It is an OBJECTIVE fact .. has more
>>>> ... than needed", and:
>>>>
>>>> "has too many ... is ... purely subjective".
>>>>
>>>>> You're taking phrases out of context and making false claims that the
>>>>> full statement was far more general than it actually was.
>>>>
>>>> And this is exactly what other people are doing.
>>>
>>> Taken literally, your statement implies that you admit that that's
>>> what you're doing. Is that what you meant? If so, I suggest you
>>> *stop* making such false claims. If not, what did you actually mean?
>>>
>>>> So I used TOO MANY instead of MORE THAN NEEDED to describe the exact
>>>> same phenomenon.
>>>
>>> That's not the problem. There is an actual meaningful distinction
>>> here, between what's needed by the compiler and what's useful to
>>> improve clarity for human readers. I have found some of what you've
>>> written to be unclear about that distinction.
>>>
>>> Can we agree that the question of whether parentheses in a C
>>> expression are necessary to the compiler can be answered objectively?
>>> Can we agree that the question of whether extra parentheses are
>>> helpful to a human reader is at least partly subjective, and
>>> varies from case to case? Is there really anything else that we
>>> fundamentally disagree about?
>>>
>>>> (1) Why are you all making such a big fucking deal of this?
>>>
>>> Why are you?
>>
>> I didn't start this business of something being subjective or objective,
>> or suggesting than one turn of phrase to discuss the same thing was
>> subjective and the other objective (implying that a subjective opinion
>> had less worth). TR started that and several people backed him up.
>>
>> Myself I wouldn't even use those terms. My point was that some overuses
>> of () for commonly known precedences are more overkill than others.
>>
>> If that's subjective then so be it; it is not some fundamental law of
>> the universe. I would just call it common sense.
>>
>> > Why are you?
>>
>> Since you ask, I was defending my point of view then got sidetracked by
>> this subjective/objective nonsense. I notice that TR has disappeared
>> from this subthread.
>>
>
> Wrt the number of ()'s? Might as well go to sleep with the following
> song playing in the background:
>
> (The Fate of Ophelia - Taylor Swift (Lyrics) Charlie Puth ft. Selena
> Gomez, the weekd, ariana grande)
AFAICS outer parentheses there are excessive, inner ones look OK.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-05 02:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10vtdc7$id4$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #399717 |
In article <10vsrpo$men2$2@dont-email.me>, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >On 04/06/2026 22:06, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> [snip] >>> Tim Rentsch I'm sure will prefer the latter because 99.9% of C >>> programmers are machines, according to him. >> >> Tim didn't say or imply that. > >So what was his 99.9% all about? Nobody has a clue, except they are >certain that what I think it is is wrong! Have you thought about, I don't know, maybe asking him? >>> Presumably, the same 99.9% will not use indentation, and will write >>> their programs all on one line anyway, because it is still after all >>> completely unambiguous according to the C standard! >> >> Of course not, because 99.9% of C programmers are not idiots.. >> Your record of guessing incorrectly what other people think is >> unbroken. I suggest you stop trying. > >This is what Tim said: > >"If someone really can't learn the rules of expression syntax for the >language they are using, they should be advised to try a different >language, or perhaps give up programming altogether. It's silly to >worry about something that 999 people out of a 1000 (and the actual >numbers are undoubtedly much higher) are able to navigate without >difficulty." > >It sounds to me very much as though he expects 99.9% to know all C's >precedences by heart and to never need to use superfluous brackets (or >'more than needed if 'superfluous' is still to subjective). > >But of course, I am wrong and he is right, and you will defend his view >(a subjective one) to the death. You omited some of what reads to me like fairly important context before the part you posted: |This statement illustrates the problem with examples that you give. |Not only is the presumed reader sort of arbitrarily naive, he or she |is apparently incapable of learning. Everyone who has ever learned |to program has had an experience of a program doing something other |than what was expected, because of a misunderstanding about how the |language works. When that happens, most people simply learn about |their misunderstanding and correct it. The readers in your examples |are like people who started programming after developing Alzheimer's |disease (and no offense meant to anyone afflicted with Alzheimer's). |Maybe there are such people, whether or not caused by a medical |condition, but it doesn't match most programmers' experience, and in |any case is not worth worrying about. If someone can't understand |the rules of the road they shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car. I don't presume to speak for him, but his point appears to be that most programmers (999 out of a 10000) learn from their mistakes. Part of that may be developing techniques to prevent future reoccurance of those mistakes. Programmers make mistakes; it happens all the time. Many C programmers may well have experienced mistakes with operator precedence; it's well-known that the rules have some rough edges. Usually this is fairly easy to spot in testing; it may result in a momentary head scratching, perhaps a, "huh...that's weird..." followed by looking at a table or puzzling over the grammar for a moment, and then an, "ohh....I see." Perhaps the programmer thinks, "wow, that confused me.... I'm going to put in some parentheses to make it clear what's going on the next time I'm in here..." or maybe they don't. That's the part that is subjective. The point is, not just most programmers, but most people in general, make mistakes and then learn from them. If one cannot learn from those mistakes vis a particular activity (like programming, or maybe driving) them maybe one should not be doing that activity, whatever it is. I suppose one might struggle to learn from one's mistakes and still enjoy programming, perhaps as a hobby. I don't see any harm in that; driving might be another matter: cars are big, heavy, and go fast enough to kill someone. Where you seem to go off the rails in _this_ discussion is what others have already told you: you are mistaking an expression of preference with measurable facts. What constitutes "too many" or "too few" parentheses is not well-defined: one cannot go look in a text book and and a defintiion of "too many" here. And even though most people agree that `((((((((a * b))))))))` is "too many", that's still an opinion: someone else may disagree. _I_ may think that the person who wrote that and anyone who agree with them has no taste and an utter lack of class, but that's nothing more than my opinion. Here's an example: when I use the ternary operator, I _usually_ wrap the first expression in parens. Necessary? Almost never. But I just like the way it looks, but aesthetics are purely subjective. - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-05 00:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86o6hpbeyk.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #399733 |
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes: > In article <10vsrpo$men2$2@dont-email.me>, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > >> On 04/06/2026 22:06, Keith Thompson wrote: >> >>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> >>>> [snip] >>>> Tim Rentsch I'm sure will prefer the latter because 99.9% of C >>>> programmers are machines, according to him. >>> >>> Tim didn't say or imply that. >> >> So what was his 99.9% all about? Nobody has a clue, except they are >> certain that what I think it is is wrong! > > Have you thought about, I don't know, maybe asking him? At the risk of saying what may be obvious to everyone, Bart has shown that he has no interest in having a serious, constructive, useful, or productive conversation with anyone. His questions are all rhetorical; he hasn't asked me a straight question because he isn't really interested in what I would say. In short, Bart isn't looking for an answer, he's looking for an argument. My recommendation is just stop responding to him altogether. My response to him upthread was a sincere effort to provide a neutral and helpful answer to his question. Maybe my remarks were helpful to other people, and if they were that's good. Any further efforts to interact with Bart are not just a waste of time but actually counterproductive. What Bart needs is not help with understanding C but a good therapist. In any case I'm confident that whatever Bart's needs may be, no one responding to his postings here is in a position to provide them. Please consider these remarks before responding to him further.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-05 11:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10vu703$11s5q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #399739 |
On 05/06/2026 08:53, Tim Rentsch wrote: > cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes: > >> In article <10vsrpo$men2$2@dont-email.me>, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> >>> On 04/06/2026 22:06, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> >>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> [snip] >>>>> Tim Rentsch I'm sure will prefer the latter because 99.9% of C >>>>> programmers are machines, according to him. >>>> >>>> Tim didn't say or imply that. >>> >>> So what was his 99.9% all about? Nobody has a clue, except they are >>> certain that what I think it is is wrong! >> >> Have you thought about, I don't know, maybe asking him? Asking him straight questions is usually futile. You can probably guess this from the response below. Notice he hasn't tried to enlighten anyone about that 99.9%. That may just have been a throwaway line like when I say 'nobody likes X', but I would still dispute that, if it's about what I think it is, it's anything like a super-majority. > At the risk of saying what may be obvious to everyone, Bart has > shown that he has no interest in having a serious, constructive, > useful, or productive conversation with anyone. His questions > are all rhetorical; he hasn't asked me a straight question > because he isn't really interested in what I would say. In > short, Bart isn't looking for an answer, he's looking for an > argument. My recommendation is just stop responding to him > altogether. My response to him upthread was a sincere effort to > provide a neutral and helpful answer to his question. Maybe my > remarks were helpful to other people, and if they were that's > good. Any further efforts to interact with Bart are not just a > waste of time but actually counterproductive. What Bart needs is > not help with understanding C but a good therapist. In any case > I'm confident that whatever Bart's needs may be, no one responding > to his postings here is in a position to provide them. Please > consider these remarks before responding to him further.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-05 05:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86jysdb1yr.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #399743 |
I didn't read Bart's posting. Unfortunately it seems true that any continued interaction with his comments is counterproductive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-04 15:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10vsu06$ndib$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #399705 |
On 6/4/2026 12:29 PM, Bart wrote: [...] > And 'more than needed' isn't that?! All hail extra ()'s! :^) ((branch) ? (cond0) : (cond1)) Well, I like to make my ? operators explicitly separated with extra ()'s... I basically never use (?:) anyway. Some times I did in a crazy macro expression along the lines of the chaos PP lib... Oh my. ;^o [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-05 09:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10vttsg$uv3v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #399705 |
On 04/06/2026 21:29, Bart wrote:
> On 04/06/2026 19:54, David Brown wrote:
>> On 04/06/2026 17:46, Bart wrote:
>>> On 04/06/2026 15:27, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 04/06/2026 15:18, Bart wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> It is an objective fact, therefore, that "(a*a) + (b*b)" has more
>>>>>> parentheses than needed in the context of most programming languages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "(a*a) + (b*b) has too many parentheses", on the other hand, is a
>>>>>> purely subjective opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you're arguing 'more than needed' is a completely different
>>>>> thing from 'too many'.
>>>>
>>>> Of course they are different things - albeit related things, rather
>>>> than /completely/ different. One is a question of fact, the other a
>>>> question of opinion, and they do not always coincide.
>>>>
>>>> It is a fact that "a << (b + c)" has more parentheses than needed.
>>>> But I think we are both of the opinion that it does not have "too
>>>> many" parentheses - it has an appropriate number of parentheses.
>>>
>>> So saying 'too many' of something will be a subjective opinion? OK,
>>> so let's try compiling this bit of C:
>>>
>>> void F(int, int);
>>>
>>> int main() {
>>> F(1, 2, 3);
>>> }
>>>
>>> 8 out of 9 compilers reported 'Too many arguments'.
>>>
>>> According to you, that's only their subjective opinion, not an
>>> objective fact?
>>
>> Again - /please/ stop trying to guess what people say or put words in
>> their mouths. I can't remember ever seeing you do so accurately.
>
> This is what you actually said:
>
> > It is an objective fact, therefore, that "(a*a) + (b*b)" has more
> > parentheses than needed in the context of most programming languages.
> >
> > "(a*a) + (b*b) has too many parentheses", on the other hand, is a purely
> > subjective opinion. Even if it is true that this is "commonly agreed
> > to" (and AFAIK you have no basis for that claim), that would still be a
> > subjective opinion - no matter how common that opinion is.
>
> You're saying that:
How can this be /so/ difficult for you?
>
> * "more than needed" is objective
No, I said that "(a*a) + (b*b)" has more parentheses than needed in the
context of most programming languages" is objective.
> * "too many" is subjective
No, I said that "(a*a) + (b*b) has too many parentheses" is subjective.
The context is /critical/. There are plenty of situations where the
words "more than needed" might turn up in a subjective phrase. There
are plenty of situations where "too many" might turn up in an objective
phrase.
It is not those particular words that make the difference between
"subjective" and "objective". "Subjective" means there is a subject -
almost always a human subject - and the judgement or categorisation
depends on that person or persons. "Objective" means there is no person
involved, and the judgement or categorisation is independent of any person.
A categorisation of an expression that depends on its meaning in C does
not involve a person - the judgement is mechanical and based solely on
the expression and the C standards. It is therefore objective. Any
sufficiently intelligent and literate person will reach the same
decision even if they have never used C or any other programming language.
A categorisation of what people feel is too many parentheses in an
expression is entirely dependent on that person. Some people might be
happy with more, some people might prefer a minimum number allowed by
the language while maintaining the same semantics. Some might prefer
lots but be okay with fewer, or prefer fewer but understand why others
prefer more. Some might draw a hard line and say that more than three
nestings is too much, others might have no limits. Some will say it
depends on the circumstances, drawing distinction between code that they
write and code they have to read, or code that is generated
automatically in some way. Clearly, this is all highly subjective.
>
> Even though both are about exactly the same thing: superfluous but
> harmless parentheses in an expression.
>
> So you are picking on my choice of words, apparently in order to win
> some stupid argument on the internet. Even though the same "too many"
> phrase used elsewhere can be objective, according to you.
>
I don't care about the words - I care that you can make a distinction
between what is factual and objective, and what is opinionated and
subjective.
My suspicion is that you actually have a real, serious problem in this
area. Your programming has been so insular and isolated for so long,
that you are perhaps genuinely unable to make such distinctions - at
least in the context of programming. For you, programming revolves
entirely around /you/ - you designed your language(s), you implemented
it, you use it. Your language, and the programs you have written in it,
are part of you and have no non-subjective existence - and languages and
programs that are not yours have only limited existence and relevance to
you. This makes it very difficult for you to distinguish between
objective matters, such as a language's syntax, and subjective matters,
such as coding style. For example, you appear to think that code
written in an unclear style means the syntax is ambiguous, conflating
subjective opinion with objective fact. You view the C standards as a
set of guidelines, rather than a contract and specification, because in
your own programming world your language descriptions /are/ a set of
guidelines and rough notes that you can change at a whim as easily and
often as you change code written in the language. In your programming
world, everything is subjective because it all comes from your personal
likes and dislikes, and everything seems objective because there are no
other people to have opinions or thoughts.
> This looks like a pattern: people here seem to have remarkable trouble
> debating with me on actual ideas and resort instead to find hidden
> significance in the some choice of words I'd happen to use.
>
For discussions to have any chance of being productive, they have to
share a common language and understanding of terms and concepts.
>
>> "Too many parentheses" is subjective, because they affect the ease of
>> reading the code as a human reader.
>
> And 'more than needed' isn't that?!
In the context it was used, that is correct. "More than needed" means
that some could be removed without changing the semantics of the
expression - it's meaning as a C expression.
>
> Tim Rentsch I'm sure will prefer the latter because 99.9% of C
> programmers are machines, according to him.
Please give a reference for him saying that. (I'll save you the bother,
he has not made any remarks remotely like this in c.l.c. since I have
been here.)
>
> Presumably, the same 99.9% will not use indentation, and will write
> their programs all on one line anyway, because it is still after all
> completely unambiguous according to the C standard!
>
Don't presume - you make a fool out of yourself every time you do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-05 12:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10vuci0$13jv4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #399738 |
On 05/06/2026 08:29, David Brown wrote: > On 04/06/2026 21:29, Bart wrote: >> You're saying that: > > How can this be /so/ difficult for you? > >> >> * "more than needed" is objective > > No, I said that "(a*a) + (b*b)" has more parentheses than needed in the > context of most programming languages" is objective. > >> * "too many" is subjective > > No, I said that "(a*a) + (b*b) has too many parentheses" is subjective. If anyone is interested (which I doubt; bart-bashing is much more fun), this is the original context: TR: >>> Sadly the idea of writing in a way that is "most easily understood" >>> has resulted in a race to the bottom, where writers are more and >>> more encouraged to take the view that (some) readers are pretty >>> much arbitrarily stupid, with the result that expressions become >>> littered with scads of unnecessary parentheses that actually >>> detract from ease of reading. Good writing is always a balance >>> between too much and too little. >> BC: >> Actual examples of too many parentheses? > TR: > The point of my comment is that either too many or too few is a > subjective judgment, not an objective one. Here it is clear that 'too many' was just a paraphrase of 'unnecessary'. Here is my followup to TR: BC: > My point was that it could be objective, at least for too many. For an infix syntax where * has higher priority than +, then it is a fact that the () in (a*a) + (b*b) are not necessary. So, assume a minimum number of () needed to properly parse an expression according to intent. Then: (1) TOO FEW: necessarily has to be subjective. It suggests a desire for more () than the minimum, but the exact number will vary. (2) TOO MANY, MORE THAN NEEDED, ETC: These can objective if refering to any number of extra () above the mininum. This is the point I made above, the one I defended. (3) TOO MANY, MORE THAN NEEDED, ETC: These can also be used in a judgemental manner, and there are subjective. This is where a certain number of extra () are accepted for readability etc, but the exact level will vary. If this is the point people have been trying to make, then they've been doing it incredibly badly, and been unnecessarily unpleasant and insulting. My own view is that C syntax has too much of (3), but necessarily so because of the choices made in its operator levels. The syntaxes I work on tend to have more of (2); () is less often needed for readability because of more sensible design choices. And IMO less often needed for overrides too, for the same reasons. For example, where C has (*P).m or (*Q)[i], I'd write P^.m or Q^[i], since I chose a postfix rather then prefix deferences operator. In general, for the same programs, C will probably use at least 20% more parentheses. >> Tim Rentsch I'm sure will prefer the latter because 99.9% of C >> programmers are machines, according to him. > > Please give a reference for him saying that. (I'll save you the bother, > he has not made any remarks remotely like this in c.l.c. since I have > been here.) Find out what was the subject of the 99.9% (even if that was an exaggeration). Then we'll talk. No, he didn't use the word 'machines'; I paraphrased to suggest supernormal people who know everything and never make mistakes. You're going to argue about this now? >> >> Presumably, the same 99.9% will not use indentation, and will write >> their programs all on one line anyway, because it is still after all >> completely unambiguous according to the C standard! >> > Don't presume - you make a fool out of yourself every time you do. And you proceed to do exactly the same; Bart must be wrong, but you don't about what!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-05 15:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10vujp3$13dqk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #399744 |
On 05/06/2026 13:39, Bart wrote: > On 05/06/2026 08:29, David Brown wrote: >> On 04/06/2026 21:29, Bart wrote: > >>> You're saying that: >> >> How can this be /so/ difficult for you? >> >>> >>> * "more than needed" is objective >> >> No, I said that "(a*a) + (b*b)" has more parentheses than needed in >> the context of most programming languages" is objective. >> >>> * "too many" is subjective >> >> No, I said that "(a*a) + (b*b) has too many parentheses" is subjective. > > If anyone is interested (which I doubt; bart-bashing is much more fun), > this is the original context: > I am writing in a detailed and repetitive maner to be sure there are no misunderstandings, not as "bart-bashing". > TR: > >>> Sadly the idea of writing in a way that is "most easily understood" > >>> has resulted in a race to the bottom, where writers are more and > >>> more encouraged to take the view that (some) readers are pretty > >>> much arbitrarily stupid, with the result that expressions become > >>> littered with scads of unnecessary parentheses that actually > >>> detract from ease of reading. Good writing is always a balance > >>> between too much and too little. > >> This is clearly about "too many" or "too few" as a subjective matter - i.e., in addition to the minimum required for the desired semantics. (The minimum requirements are objective, so the code has the correct C semantics - additional parentheses are about style and clarity, which are subjective.) > BC: > >> Actual examples of too many parentheses? I assume here we are again talking about "too many" beyond the necessary number. Coming from anyone else, I would happily assume they are talking about subjective opinions - "Can you give examples of real-world code where you think there are too many unnecessary parentheses, resulting in code that is harder to read than it would otherwise be?" Coming from you, it might also mean the nonsensical question "Can you give examples of code that objectively has too many unnecessary parentheses?". > > > TR: > > The point of my comment is that either too many or too few is a > > subjective judgment, not an objective one. > > Here it is clear that 'too many' was just a paraphrase of 'unnecessary'. No, it is not. In the expression "a << (b + c)", there are unnecessary parentheses, but not - IMHO - too many parentheses. That is because "unnecessary" (in this context - and don't generalise from it) is an objective matter of whether or not the semantics of the expression are affected by the parentheses. "Too many" (in this context) is a subjective matter of clarity of code. In my opinion, the parentheses are helpful and there are therefore not too many of them - but as a matter of C semantics, they are objectively unnecessary. Again, I am unable to read Tim's mind, and I am not accountable for what he writes or how he writes it. But to my reading, it is quite clear that "too many" is /not/ a paraphrase of "unnecessary". > Here is my followup to TR: > > BC: > > My point was that it could be objective, at least for too many. > Yes, you wrote that. You are wrong. At least, you are wrong until someone exceeds the 63 levels of nesting that are required to be supported by conforming compilers, but I do not believe that is something you are considering. > For an infix syntax where * has higher priority than +, then it is a > fact that the () in (a*a) + (b*b) are not necessary. Agreed. > > So, assume a minimum number of () needed to properly parse an expression > according to intent. Then: No, don't assume that. "Intent" implies reading the mind of the programmer. There is no such thing as "obvious intent" - there is the objective semantics of what the programmer writes, and the subjective ease with which people (including the programmer himself/herself) can read the code and understand the semantics of it. The former depends solely on the code written, the later depends significantly on the people reading it. Let us rather assume a minimum number of parentheses so that removing any would change the semantics of the expression. That is an objective measure. > > (1) TOO FEW: necessarily has to be subjective. It suggests a desire for > more () than the minimum, but the exact number will vary. > Agreed. (And we would both share the opinion that "a << b + c" has too few parentheses because we would feel it is easier to read with more parentheses - while we would both think that "a * a + b * b" does not have too few.) > (2) TOO MANY, MORE THAN NEEDED, ETC: These can objective if refering to > any number of extra () above the mininum. This is the point I made > above, the one I defended. Nope. "a << (b + c)" has "more than needed" - that is objective. "a << (b + c)" does not have "too many" in an objective sense, because the extra parentheses have not affected any objective characteristic of the expression - the semantics are the same. Some people may subjectively feel there are "too many" because they think "a << b + c" is clearer - others will have different subjective opinions. That is the context of the phrases we have had, and how they have been used. Terms like "too many" or "more than needed" can be used in different contexts, and have different meanings. If you have a bowl that can hold 6 apples, and you try to put 10 apples in the bowl, that is objectively "too many". If you write "that expression has more parentheses than needed to make the meaning clear to readers", then that is a subjective claim - it does not say anything about the number of parentheses needed to express the semantics in C (that's objective), but talks about the subjective views of readers. You cannot take a phrase like these and say "this is always objective" or "this is always subjective" - the context is always critical. > > (3) TOO MANY, MORE THAN NEEDED, ETC: These can also be used in a > judgemental manner, and there are subjective. This is where a certain > number of extra () are accepted for readability etc, but the exact level > will vary. > > If this is the point people have been trying to make, then they've been > doing it incredibly badly, and been unnecessarily unpleasant and insulting. > I cannot speak for the intentions of others, but it has certainly been very frustrating trying to get you to understand the distinction between objective facts and subjective opinions, and trying to get you to stop re-writing other people's words and to stop taking partial quotations out of context and wildly and inaccurately generalising them. > My own view is that C syntax has too much of (3), but necessarily so > because of the choices made in its operator levels. That's a subjective opinion. I would agree with it, to at least some extent - some of the precedence order is not as I would have picked. But given that there are situations where I would include additional parentheses in C code despite agreeing with the precedence order, I don't think the C syntax rule choices are the issue. I don't believe I would use fewer parentheses even if << and >> had the same precedence level as * and /, or if the bitwise operators had higher precedence than equality and other relational operators. > >>> Tim Rentsch I'm sure will prefer the latter because 99.9% of C >>> programmers are machines, according to him. >> >> Please give a reference for him saying that. (I'll save you the >> bother, he has not made any remarks remotely like this in c.l.c. since >> I have been here.) > > Find out what was the subject of the 99.9% (even if that was an > exaggeration). Then we'll talk. Again, I am not responsible for what Tim (or anyone else) writes. If you have asked him for clarification, and he has not given a satisfactory answer, there's little more to do. > > No, he didn't use the word 'machines'; I paraphrased to suggest > supernormal people who know everything and never make mistakes. > > You're going to argue about this now? Normally there is nothing wrong with paraphrasing, though in this discussion it would make a lot more sense to be precise about quotations. However, wildly exaggerating what someone says is not "paraphrasing". It is misrepresenting them, and is dishonest when done intentionally and knowingly. > >>> >>> Presumably, the same 99.9% will not use indentation, and will write >>> their programs all on one line anyway, because it is still after all >>> completely unambiguous according to the C standard! >>> >> Don't presume - you make a fool out of yourself every time you do. > > And you proceed to do exactly the same; Bart must be wrong, but you > don't about what! > I am not presuming - I was making a comment based on past history. It would be nice if it changed, either because you stop trying to guess what people think or might say, and stop distorting what they write. Put a bit more effort into reading peoples posts, and less effort into the paranoia, and I'm sure you'll feel the threads are more productive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-04 16:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3zhUR.2$8Em1.0@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #399688 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >On 04/06/2026 15:18, Bart wrote: >>>> (Note that C has its own problems in this area: >>>> >>>> a = b/*p; // divide b by dereferenced pointer p >>>> >>>> Here, /* also happens to start a block comment.) >>>> >>> >>> Here you are objectively wrong. C does not have a "problem" with >>> this. The parsing rules of the language are clear - often called >>> "maximum munch". The character sequence "/*" is the start of a >>> comment, it is not two separate operators. >> >> This is where it falls down. It's very clearly a 'gotcha', and >> consequence of poorly thought-out design. > >It is neither a "gotcha", not a consequence of poor design. Indeed, and in the early days, the compiler itself would never have seen '/*' - the preprocessor (cpp) would have removed it from the source before the source reached the first pass of the compiler (c0).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-04 17:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10vs8pj$fsd2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #399691 |
On 04/06/2026 17:18, Scott Lurndal wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> On 04/06/2026 15:18, Bart wrote: > >>>>> (Note that C has its own problems in this area: >>>>> >>>>> a = b/*p; // divide b by dereferenced pointer p >>>>> >>>>> Here, /* also happens to start a block comment.) >>>>> >>>> >>>> Here you are objectively wrong. C does not have a "problem" with >>>> this. The parsing rules of the language are clear - often called >>>> "maximum munch". The character sequence "/*" is the start of a >>>> comment, it is not two separate operators. >>> >>> This is where it falls down. It's very clearly a 'gotcha', and >>> consequence of poorly thought-out design. >> >> It is neither a "gotcha", not a consequence of poor design. > > Indeed, and in the early days, the compiler itself would never > have seen '/*' - the preprocessor (cpp) would have removed it > from the source before the source reached the first > pass of the compiler (c0). How does that not make it bad design? The proprocessor would strip everything from the /* until the next matching */, so a chunk of your program goes missing. If lucky, what's left will be an error, but not always.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web