Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #381780 > unrolled thread
| Started by | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-02-05 01:09 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-02-05 23:29 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 133 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-05 01:09 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-05 05:58 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 22:49 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-05 07:03 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 23:51 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 23:52 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Jan van den Broek <balglaas@dds.nl> - 2024-02-05 08:36 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-05 18:23 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-05 18:32 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-05 20:53 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-05 20:53 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-06 09:44 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-06 01:03 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-06 13:41 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-06 13:08 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-06 23:23 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 08:54 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 08:59 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-07 10:47 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-07 11:04 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 14:21 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-07 14:24 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 21:30 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-07 15:36 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-07 18:05 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 18:26 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-07 19:53 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 21:38 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 00:29 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 21:37 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-07 22:52 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-08 01:13 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-08 02:09 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-08 03:07 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-08 14:17 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-08 16:02 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 00:48 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-09 08:53 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-10 21:55 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-08 13:01 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-08 11:37 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 12:10 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-08 13:24 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 13:03 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-08 13:17 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-08 16:52 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-08 17:17 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-09 14:50 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 12:44 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 14:49 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-07 16:13 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 08:21 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 14:01 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-02-07 13:21 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 13:42 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 16:17 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 21:34 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 16:21 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-08 13:26 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-07 10:04 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 14:51 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-07 15:30 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 15:45 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 21:44 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 00:33 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-08 01:30 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-08 01:38 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 02:21 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-08 03:07 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-08 11:45 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 12:15 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-08 13:29 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 12:55 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-09 09:02 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-08 16:09 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-02-08 16:28 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-08 17:13 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-08 17:53 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-05 19:02 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-05 23:28 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-02-05 23:40 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-06 01:46 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-06 09:54 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 16:03 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 16:06 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-06 09:50 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-06 01:01 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-06 23:24 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 08:56 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-07 12:09 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 15:03 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 16:25 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 21:49 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 13:04 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-07 23:37 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-08 08:52 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-09 15:55 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-09 15:29 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-09 16:52 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-09 17:22 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-10 07:18 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-10 17:11 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-10 21:23 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-11 14:01 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 21:41 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-07 02:18 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 09:30 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 09:04 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-07 23:24 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-08 01:46 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-08 02:50 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-08 11:08 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-08 13:10 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-08 17:48 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-08 21:30 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-08 20:39 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 13:39 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 14:18 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-02-08 22:29 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 14:43 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-09 09:12 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-04 23:36 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-05 14:52 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-02-05 22:58 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2024-02-05 18:01 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 08:29 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-07 01:35 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-07 02:26 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-07 10:47 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2024-02-05 11:03 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-05 13:15 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-05 14:09 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-05 23:29 +0000
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-07 14:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uq01ti$1erim$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381955 |
On 07/02/2024 11:04, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > >> Making some "temp" variables and re-using them was also common for some >> people in idiomatic C90 code, where all your variables are declared at the >> top of the function. > > The comma suggests (I think) that it is C90 that mandates that all one's > variables are declared at the top of the function. But that's not the > case (as I am sure you know). Yes. > The other reading -- that this is done in > idiomatic C90 code -- is also something that I'd question, but not > something that I'd want to argue. "Idiomatic" is perhaps not the best word. (And "idiotic" is too strong!) I mean written in a way that is quite common in C90 code. > > I comment just because there seems to be a myth that "old C" had to have > all the declarations at the top of a function. That was true once, but > so long ago as to be irrelevant. Even K&R C allowed declarations at the > top of a compound statement. > It's good to make it clear.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-07 15:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87msscthq3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #381973 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > On 07/02/2024 11:04, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> >>> Making some "temp" variables and re-using them was also common for some >>> people in idiomatic C90 code, where all your variables are declared at the >>> top of the function. >> The comma suggests (I think) that it is C90 that mandates that all one's >> variables are declared at the top of the function. But that's not the >> case (as I am sure you know). > > Yes. > >> The other reading -- that this is done in >> idiomatic C90 code -- is also something that I'd question, but not >> something that I'd want to argue. > > "Idiomatic" is perhaps not the best word. (And "idiotic" is too strong!) > I mean written in a way that is quite common in C90 code. The most common meaning of "idiomatic", and the one I usually associate with it in this context, is "containing expressions that are natural and correct". That's not how I would describe eschewing declarations in inner blocks. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-07 15:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uq08i5$1fvu8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381985 |
On 07/02/2024 15:30, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > >> On 07/02/2024 11:04, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>> >>>> Making some "temp" variables and re-using them was also common for some >>>> people in idiomatic C90 code, where all your variables are declared at the >>>> top of the function. >>> The comma suggests (I think) that it is C90 that mandates that all one's >>> variables are declared at the top of the function. But that's not the >>> case (as I am sure you know). >> >> Yes. >> >>> The other reading -- that this is done in >>> idiomatic C90 code -- is also something that I'd question, but not >>> something that I'd want to argue. >> >> "Idiomatic" is perhaps not the best word. (And "idiotic" is too strong!) >> I mean written in a way that is quite common in C90 code. > > The most common meaning of "idiomatic", and the one I usually associate > with it in this context, is "containing expressions that are natural and > correct". That's not how I would describe eschewing declarations in > inner blocks. > No. It means writing the code in a way which is common in C and has certain advantages, but is not so in other languages. -- Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books: https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-07 21:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uq0q3a$1j1v4$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381989 |
On 07/02/2024 16:45, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On 07/02/2024 15:30, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> >>> On 07/02/2024 11:04, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>>> >>>>> Making some "temp" variables and re-using them was also common for >>>>> some >>>>> people in idiomatic C90 code, where all your variables are declared >>>>> at the >>>>> top of the function. >>>> The comma suggests (I think) that it is C90 that mandates that all >>>> one's >>>> variables are declared at the top of the function. But that's not the >>>> case (as I am sure you know). >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>>> The other reading -- that this is done in >>>> idiomatic C90 code -- is also something that I'd question, but not >>>> something that I'd want to argue. >>> >>> "Idiomatic" is perhaps not the best word. (And "idiotic" is too >>> strong!) >>> I mean written in a way that is quite common in C90 code. >> >> The most common meaning of "idiomatic", and the one I usually associate >> with it in this context, is "containing expressions that are natural and >> correct". That's not how I would describe eschewing declarations in >> inner blocks. Some people do feel it is more "natural" to have all their declarations at the start of their functions (and never declare variables in any inner block scopes). It's common, and their code can be correct. You and I both think there are usually better ways to structure code, but does that mean it is not "idiomatic" ? I'm not sure there is a good answer here. Unfortunately the C standards don't define the term "idiomatic" :-( If you can think of a better term to use here, I'd be happy to hear it - otherwise I think we all know the kind of code structure I meant, which was the most important point. >> > No. It means writing the code in a way which is common in C and has > certain advantages, but is not so in other languages. An idiom in C could also be an idiom in C++, Python, or any other language. Nothing in "idiomatic" implies that it is unique to a particular language, just that it is commonly used in that language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 00:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uq17gv$1l7dv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382019 |
On 07/02/2024 20:44, David Brown wrote: > On 07/02/2024 16:45, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On 07/02/2024 15:30, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> >>> The most common meaning of "idiomatic", and the one I usually associate >>> with it in this context, is "containing expressions that are natural and >>> correct". That's not how I would describe eschewing declarations in >>> inner blocks. >>> >> No. It means writing the code in a way which is common in C and has >> certain advantages, but is not so in other languages. > > An idiom in C could also be an idiom in C++, Python, or any other > language. Nothing in "idiomatic" implies that it is unique to a > particular language, just that it is commonly used in that language. > We must be able to point to at least one other language where it is not the idiom, in order to say that it is an idiom. -- Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books: https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 01:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240207171803.654@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #382050 |
On 2024-02-08, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: > On 07/02/2024 20:44, David Brown wrote: >> On 07/02/2024 16:45, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On 07/02/2024 15:30, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> >>>> The most common meaning of "idiomatic", and the one I usually associate >>>> with it in this context, is "containing expressions that are natural and >>>> correct". That's not how I would describe eschewing declarations in >>>> inner blocks. >>>> >>> No. It means writing the code in a way which is common in C and has >>> certain advantages, but is not so in other languages. >> >> An idiom in C could also be an idiom in C++, Python, or any other >> language. Nothing in "idiomatic" implies that it is unique to a >> particular language, just that it is commonly used in that language. >> > We must be able to point to at least one other language where it is not > the idiom, in order to say that it is an idiom. There are two meanings of *idiom*. The "strong" meaning of idiom is that it's a meaning arbitrarily assigned to a canned combination of words which otherwise make no sense or are ungrammatical. The "weak" meaning refers to some often used phrase. Your proposed rule has a logical flaw because it requires us to confirm that something is not an idiom in order to confirm that it is. Even though that is in separate languages, it is still a problem. Suppose that that all the literal translations of some phrase X into all known languages are naively considered idioms by all their respective speakers. Then according to your criterion, none of the languages have the right to consider it to be an idiom. Suppos that English speakers are the first to realize this problem, and choose to stop considering the English translation of X an idiom. At that point, the other remaining languages may keep it as an idiom: their speakers can now point to at least one language where it isn't. Problem is, the choice of which group must stop treating it as an idiom, so that the others may, is arbitrary. This is not a well-founded definition for a term!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 01:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uq1ba3$1lp15$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382050 |
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 00:33:35 +0000, Malcolm McLean wrote: > We must be able to point to at least one other language where it is not > the idiom, in order to say that it is an idiom. How about pointing to alternative ways it might be said in the same language, and then proclaiming that “for some reason, nobody who uses the language is supposed to do it that way”?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 02:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uq1ds2$1m55t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382061 |
On 08/02/2024 01:38, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 00:33:35 +0000, Malcolm McLean wrote: > >> We must be able to point to at least one other language where it is not >> the idiom, in order to say that it is an idiom. > > How about pointing to alternative ways it might be said in the same > language, and then proclaiming that “for some reason, nobody who uses the > language is supposed to do it that way”? So how do you say "My French is lousy" in idomatic French? Accroding to a Frenchman, it is "Doucement. Le Francais n'est pas ma langue maternelle." Now that means literally "Softly. The French is not my maternal language". You wouldn't say that in English. You'd say "go easy" instead of "softly". It would be "French" rather than "the French". And whilst you might say "maternal language" it would be rare. Normally it would be "native language". So the French has one idiom and the English another, and we say things in a slightly different way. What is the convention in one is not so in the other, and that is what makes it idiom. And of course the Frenchman made the point that whilst his information was correct, to actually use his translation would be self-refuting. -- Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books: https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 03:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240207190720.286@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #382067 |
On 2024-02-08, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: > On 08/02/2024 01:38, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 00:33:35 +0000, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> >>> We must be able to point to at least one other language where it is not >>> the idiom, in order to say that it is an idiom. >> >> How about pointing to alternative ways it might be said in the same >> language, and then proclaiming that “for some reason, nobody who uses the >> language is supposed to do it that way”? > > So how do you say "My French is lousy" in idomatic French? Je parle Quebecois. -- 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 | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 11:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87cyt7rxh8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #381989 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On 07/02/2024 15:30, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> >>> On 07/02/2024 11:04, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>>> >>>>> Making some "temp" variables and re-using them was also common for some >>>>> people in idiomatic C90 code, where all your variables are declared at the >>>>> top of the function. >>>> The comma suggests (I think) that it is C90 that mandates that all one's >>>> variables are declared at the top of the function. But that's not the >>>> case (as I am sure you know). >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>>> The other reading -- that this is done in >>>> idiomatic C90 code -- is also something that I'd question, but not >>>> something that I'd want to argue. >>> >>> "Idiomatic" is perhaps not the best word. (And "idiotic" is too strong!) >>> I mean written in a way that is quite common in C90 code. >> The most common meaning of "idiomatic", and the one I usually associate >> with it in this context, is "containing expressions that are natural and >> correct". That's not how I would describe eschewing declarations in >> inner blocks. >> > No. It means writing the code in a way which is common in C and has certain > advantages, but is not so in other languages. Where do you get your superior knowledge of English from, and is there a way anyone else can hope to achieve your level of competence? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 12:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uq2gk5$1uvp4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382090 |
On 08/02/2024 11:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > >> No. It means writing the code in a way which is common in C and has certain >> advantages, but is not so in other languages. > > Where do you get your superior knowledge of English from, and is there a > way anyone else can hope to achieve your level of competence? > Degree in English literature. Places are difficult to obtain but not impossible. You need to convince the dons that you deserve one as many other people will be after them. -- Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books: https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 13:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uq2hev$1v5v8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382094 |
On 08/02/2024 13:15, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On 08/02/2024 11:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> No. It means writing the code in a way which is common in C and has >>> certain >>> advantages, but is not so in other languages. >> >> Where do you get your superior knowledge of English from, and is there a >> way anyone else can hope to achieve your level of competence? >> > Degree in English literature. I would never have guessed that from the way you write and from how often you fail to read other people's posts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 12:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uq2j01$1vg9n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382097 |
On 08/02/2024 12:29, David Brown wrote: > On 08/02/2024 13:15, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On 08/02/2024 11:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> No. It means writing the code in a way which is common in C and has >>>> certain >>>> advantages, but is not so in other languages. >>> >>> Where do you get your superior knowledge of English from, and is there a >>> way anyone else can hope to achieve your level of competence? >>> >> Degree in English literature. > > I would never have guessed that from the way you write and from how > often you fail to read other people's posts. > What an Oxford English tutor mostly cares about is that the essay is produced. Not so much what it says. You'll always get some marks for writing something and will therefore pass, but you can get no marks for nothing and can only fail. So handing in a stupid essay is acceptable but not handing in the essay at all is a big no no and tutors really hate that. It's all about pulling something together in a tight deadline on a subject about which you knew absolutely nothing last week, and that's what they value. So it does encourage a rather slapdash approach and reading things quickly, and maybe that is a fault. -- Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books: https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-09 09:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uq4m64$2hive$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382100 |
On 08/02/2024 13:55, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On 08/02/2024 12:29, David Brown wrote: >> On 08/02/2024 13:15, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On 08/02/2024 11:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> No. It means writing the code in a way which is common in C and has >>>>> certain >>>>> advantages, but is not so in other languages. >>>> >>>> Where do you get your superior knowledge of English from, and is >>>> there a >>>> way anyone else can hope to achieve your level of competence? >>>> >>> Degree in English literature. >> >> I would never have guessed that from the way you write and from how >> often you fail to read other people's posts. >> > > What an Oxford English tutor mostly cares about is that the essay is > produced. Not so much what it says. You'll always get some marks for > writing something and will therefore pass, but you can get no marks for > nothing and can only fail. So handing in a stupid essay is acceptable > but not handing in the essay at all is a big no no and tutors really > hate that. It's all about pulling something together in a tight deadline > on a subject about which you knew absolutely nothing last week, and > that's what they value. So it does encourage a rather slapdash approach > and reading things quickly, and maybe that is a fault. > I guess there are good tutors and bad tutors, even at Oxford. What you describe bears no relation to the experiences of friends at Oxford university who studied English literature. My /maths/ tutor would have failed someone who handed in work as carelessly and thoughtlessly written as some of your posts, regardless of whether the mathematics itself were correct. Are you really suggesting your tutor merely counted the number of pages you handed in, and didn't care if you had read the texts or not? He/she didn't care if you talked about Shakespeare's plays, or if you called them "actions" since that's what actors perform, and because you consider the use of standard terms to be beneath you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 16:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <N07xN.342025$c3Ea.10589@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #382097 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >On 08/02/2024 13:15, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On 08/02/2024 11:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> No. It means writing the code in a way which is common in C and has >>>> certain >>>> advantages, but is not so in other languages. >>> >>> Where do you get your superior knowledge of English from, and is there a >>> way anyone else can hope to achieve your level of competence? >>> >> Degree in English literature. > >I would never have guessed that from the way you write and from how >often you fail to read other people's posts. And Malcolm doesn't apparently recognize sarcasm.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 16:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uq2vev$21oav$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382111 |
On 08/02/2024 16:09, Scott Lurndal wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> On 08/02/2024 13:15, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On 08/02/2024 11:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> No. It means writing the code in a way which is common in C and has >>>>> certain >>>>> advantages, but is not so in other languages. >>>> >>>> Where do you get your superior knowledge of English from, and is there a >>>> way anyone else can hope to achieve your level of competence? >>>> >>> Degree in English literature. >> >> I would never have guessed that from the way you write and from how >> often you fail to read other people's posts. > > And Malcolm doesn't apparently recognize sarcasm. I think they only teach that at Cambridge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 17:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87v86yria3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #382111 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>On 08/02/2024 13:15, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On 08/02/2024 11:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> No. It means writing the code in a way which is common in C and has >>>>> certain >>>>> advantages, but is not so in other languages. >>>> >>>> Where do you get your superior knowledge of English from, and is there a >>>> way anyone else can hope to achieve your level of competence? >>>> >>> Degree in English literature. >> >>I would never have guessed that from the way you write and from how >>often you fail to read other people's posts. > > And Malcolm doesn't apparently recognize sarcasm. I think it's extremely unlikely that he missed it. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 17:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86plx65roq.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #381985 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > The most common meaning of "idiomatic", and the one I usually > associate with it in [the context of some C coding conventions], > is "containing expressions that are natural and correct". [...] It surprised me to read this. In my lexicon "idiomatic" usually means something more like "easily understood by a native speaker but resistant to literal translation". An example might be "raining cats and dogs". Looking up "idiom" and "idiomatic" in several online dictionaries, the meanings are definitely multi-valued. In C we might say that Duff's Device is idiomatic. On the other hand we could say K&R style function definitions are unusual in contemporary C idiom (and so by implication ANSI/ISO C style function definitions are idiomatic). So one meaning is more or less "normal practice" whereas another meaning is more like "strange although often used construction". Please note that I am expressing no opinion on which meaning is "better" or "worse", or anything along those lines. I just found it interesting that these words have somewhat divergent meanings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-05 19:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20240205190209.00002c1f@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #381793 |
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 05:58:55 -0000 (UTC) Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> wrote: > > * Nearly everyone here is working on massively huge and complex > > projects, which all take from minutes to hours for a full build. > > That's the landscape. Nobody is going to pay you for writing small > utilities in C. That sort of thing all went to scripting languages. > (It happens from time to time as a side task.) > > I currently work on a a firmware application that compiles to a 100 > megabyte (stripped!) executable. > My before last firmware project compiles from scratch in 0m1.623s despite using bloated STmicro libraries and headers. On Windows, with antivirus running, using 10 y.o. PC. With brand new CPU, bare metal Linux and modern NVMe SSD it will likely finish 3 times faster. Windows by itself is not a measurable slowdown, but antivirus is, and until now I didn't find a way to get antivirus-free Windows at work. Projects that small are not typical in my embedded development practice practice. But embedded projects that on somewhat beefier 5 y.o. hardware compile from scratch in less than 5 sec are typical. As to PC development, project that I am trying to fix right now uses link-time code generation, so it takes ~8 seconds (VS 2019, msbuild, command line tools) to rebuild when just one file changed. I accept it because it's not my own project. If it was mine, I'd probably want to improve it. Besides, today I grew older, less intolerable of delays than 25-30 years ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-05 23:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uprqu3$gcqc$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381830 |
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 19:02:09 +0200, Michael S wrote: > Windows by itself is not a measurable slowdown, but antivirus is, and > until now I didn't find a way to get antivirus-free Windows at work. But if you don’t have antivirus on your build machine, the sad fact of development on Windows is that there are viruses that will insinuate themselves into the build products.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web