Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #391319 > unrolled thread
| Started by | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-03-18 21:38 -0400 |
| Last post | 2025-03-23 12:29 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 422 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-18 21:38 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-18 19:05 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-18 19:22 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-18 22:43 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-18 20:11 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-18 20:07 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-18 23:34 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-19 04:01 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-19 00:38 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-18 22:27 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-19 13:23 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-19 13:40 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-19 11:56 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-19 15:06 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-19 12:52 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-19 11:55 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-19 13:23 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-19 17:38 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-19 20:19 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-19 19:03 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-20 05:09 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-20 12:23 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-20 13:36 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-20 14:00 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-20 14:32 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-20 15:11 +0000
Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-24 16:37 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-24 16:14 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-24 17:20 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-24 21:56 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-25 08:45 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-25 09:08 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-25 19:55 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 09:18 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-25 08:39 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-25 03:51 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-25 13:11 +0200
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-25 05:02 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-25 16:33 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-25 20:04 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 09:23 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-25 13:31 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 09:34 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-26 02:59 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 12:33 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 15:59 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 17:37 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-26 12:38 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 22:53 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-26 15:15 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-27 10:11 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-29 18:25 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-29 18:20 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-30 01:39 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-03-31 17:15 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-31 19:48 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-31 21:14 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-31 14:56 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-26 14:07 -0400
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-26 17:58 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-26 14:20 -0400
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-26 12:42 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-26 17:36 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-27 13:48 -0400
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-27 18:31 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-29 10:14 -0400
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-29 16:39 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-29 21:02 -0400
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-27 12:31 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-27 20:06 +0000
Newsgroup etiquette Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-28 11:03 -0700
Re: Newsgroup etiquette Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-28 18:39 +0000
Re: Newsgroup etiquette Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-28 18:45 +0000
Re: Newsgroup etiquette Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-27 12:28 -0700
Re: Newsgroup etiquette Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-27 14:40 -0700
Re: Newsgroup etiquette Ethan Carter <ec1828@somewhere.edu> - 2025-04-28 00:59 -0300
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 15:58 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-25 19:09 +0200
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-25 17:34 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-25 19:49 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-25 12:53 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-25 13:39 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-07 00:04 -0800
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-25 13:23 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 09:50 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-25 16:22 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-03-25 18:18 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-25 19:55 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-25 13:41 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-25 23:35 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-25 16:38 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-25 19:55 -0400
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 10:00 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-26 16:01 +0200
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-26 14:45 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-26 17:16 +0200
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-26 08:55 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 17:45 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-26 17:22 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-26 17:19 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 17:40 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-26 17:25 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 21:27 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-26 20:34 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-26 13:50 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-26 21:04 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-26 14:12 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-26 21:18 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-26 23:22 +0200
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-26 14:38 -0400
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-26 18:52 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 17:32 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-26 22:29 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-26 14:31 -0400
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 21:33 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-28 15:42 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-25 19:52 -0400
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-25 17:16 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-25 04:55 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-25 13:48 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-25 21:52 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-25 22:36 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-25 23:14 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 10:09 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-03 20:03 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-04 14:04 +0200
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-04 15:43 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-04 18:39 +0200
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-04 19:02 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-05 11:29 +0200
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-15 23:02 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-20 14:50 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-20 16:59 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-20 15:16 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-20 17:29 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-20 15:55 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-23 11:01 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-23 12:56 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-20 11:47 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-20 12:28 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-20 15:40 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-20 15:57 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-20 20:46 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-20 19:15 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-20 19:58 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-20 22:57 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-20 21:10 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-20 16:10 -0700
The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-24 16:59 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-24 15:57 -0700
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-25 10:38 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-25 16:31 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-25 19:23 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-25 13:14 -0700
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-25 23:50 -0700
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 10:33 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-25 19:18 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-25 18:50 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-25 20:45 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-25 23:30 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 14:59 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 11:29 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 15:08 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 17:50 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 19:09 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 21:39 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-26 23:21 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-26 23:51 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-27 00:32 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-27 13:51 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-27 01:10 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-27 01:33 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-27 10:54 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-27 14:09 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-28 17:49 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-27 14:07 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-27 03:24 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-27 11:14 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-27 14:14 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-28 02:05 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-28 10:13 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-28 11:22 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-28 14:32 +0300
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-28 13:42 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-28 11:37 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-28 13:53 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-28 13:00 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-28 14:06 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-28 10:05 -0700
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-28 12:19 +0000
[OT] PC hardware prices [correction] (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-31 21:35 +0200
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-27 15:04 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-28 02:59 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-27 19:03 -0700
[OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-28 03:26 +0100
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-27 23:14 -0700
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-28 13:26 +0300
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-28 13:08 +0100
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-28 15:20 +0300
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-28 15:33 +0100
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-28 10:26 -0700
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-28 10:27 -0700
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-28 18:44 +0000
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-28 17:46 +0000
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-28 17:45 +0000
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-28 13:20 +0100
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-28 15:56 +0300
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-28 14:20 +0100
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-28 15:43 +0100
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-28 17:54 +0000
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-28 10:16 -0700
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-28 11:03 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-28 14:01 +0300
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-28 11:29 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-28 12:46 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-28 12:30 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 11:10 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-03-26 11:02 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 12:47 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-26 13:12 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 14:48 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 15:40 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-26 18:29 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 15:22 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-26 13:09 -0700
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-25 13:16 -0700
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 11:33 +0100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-20 12:22 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-20 12:10 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-20 20:59 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-20 16:18 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-20 23:55 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-21 00:46 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-21 01:23 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-20 18:47 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-21 11:53 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-21 12:04 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-22 00:23 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-21 20:50 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-22 13:06 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-22 14:51 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-22 14:52 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-23 01:34 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-23 10:50 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-23 11:25 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-23 14:12 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-24 12:51 +0100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-24 14:07 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-24 15:32 +0100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-24 15:00 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-24 17:22 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-24 16:12 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-24 16:02 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-24 16:17 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-24 16:49 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-24 16:56 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-24 18:20 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-25 08:40 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-25 11:09 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-25 14:46 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-25 15:04 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-25 15:09 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-25 16:40 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-26 09:20 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-26 10:07 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-26 18:06 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-27 00:22 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-27 14:22 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-27 10:54 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-28 16:13 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-28 16:40 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-28 20:41 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-28 22:18 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-28 15:33 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-28 22:48 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-28 16:53 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-29 00:32 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-28 18:50 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-29 16:24 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-29 13:37 +0100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-29 16:33 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-29 17:23 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-29 18:11 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-28 10:57 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-25 16:16 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-25 13:29 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-25 14:58 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-25 17:14 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-25 16:37 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-25 19:00 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-24 17:15 +0000
Code-change-to-run times (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-24 18:44 +0100
Re: Code-change-to-run times (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-24 23:06 +0200
Re: Code-change-to-run times (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-24 23:44 +0100
Re: Code-change-to-run times (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-25 13:00 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-24 21:16 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-25 08:41 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-25 11:04 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-25 14:43 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-25 13:51 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-25 14:22 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-24 17:10 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-24 19:07 +0100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-24 15:44 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-24 11:27 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-24 20:13 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-24 23:01 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-25 11:17 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-24 15:42 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-24 11:27 -0700
Compiler speed (ad nauseam) (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-24 18:01 +0100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-24 19:25 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-25 00:53 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-24 19:00 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-24 21:50 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-25 08:19 +0100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-22 14:41 +0100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-23 11:41 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-23 14:13 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-23 23:19 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-22 07:05 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-22 02:37 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-22 12:20 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-22 13:50 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-22 15:47 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-22 17:00 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-22 15:31 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-21 17:51 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-21 18:51 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-22 02:16 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-22 04:15 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-21 21:24 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-22 14:07 +0000
Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 02:04 +0100
Re: Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-25 22:35 -0400
Re: Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 12:40 +0100
Re: Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 14:47 +0100
Re: Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 17:55 +0100
Re: Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-26 19:36 +0200
Re: Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-26 13:44 +0000
Re: Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 16:19 +0100
Re: Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-26 02:37 +0000
Re: Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 14:42 +0100
Re: Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-26 19:01 +0100
Re: Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-26 18:49 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-22 00:01 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-22 01:41 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-22 14:22 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-22 14:32 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-22 16:25 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-20 16:35 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-20 14:42 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-20 16:20 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-20 11:33 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-20 12:07 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-19 12:59 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-19 22:12 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-20 05:19 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-18 20:26 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-19 00:42 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-19 04:51 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-19 01:02 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-19 05:23 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-20 06:06 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-20 13:27 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-20 16:50 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-20 11:24 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-20 18:53 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-20 16:56 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-22 16:46 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-23 08:25 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-23 12:06 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-23 10:15 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-23 12:35 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-24 13:09 +0100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2025-03-22 19:07 +1100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-22 13:25 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-22 19:12 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-22 19:17 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-22 17:22 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-22 10:29 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2025-03-25 21:41 +1100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-22 14:30 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-22 11:31 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-22 19:19 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-22 14:54 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2025-03-19 07:16 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-19 01:53 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-19 16:45 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-19 21:21 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-19 21:35 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-19 14:56 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-19 22:34 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-19 19:46 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-19 11:25 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-19 10:15 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-19 12:40 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-19 17:42 +0100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-19 09:03 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-19 14:40 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-19 17:39 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-19 15:42 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> - 2025-03-22 15:05 +1100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-22 10:19 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> - 2025-03-23 11:05 +1100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-03-23 16:22 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-19 13:13 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-20 09:50 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-20 04:59 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-20 16:14 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-20 16:29 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-20 16:49 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-21 09:09 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-21 17:12 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-19 12:36 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-19 09:13 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-20 05:15 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-20 12:14 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-21 00:05 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-21 07:48 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-03-22 13:32 -0500
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-23 12:29 -0400
Page 2 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 22 Next page →
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-20 05:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86r02roqdq.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #391366 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 17:38:12 +0000 > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > >> On 19/03/2025 17:23, DFS wrote: >> >>> On 3/19/2025 5:55 AM, Michael S wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 00:38:44 -0400 >>>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 3/18/2025 11:07 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Have you thought about how large the value of 'n' can >>>>>> become inside the while() loop? >>>>> >>>>> I was too smug in my first reply. After Keith pointed out I >>>>> needed >>>>> to read from stdin, I submitted the code again and it passed some >>>>> tests but failed with 'OUTPUT LIMIT EXCEEDED' when n = 159487. >>>>> >>>>> Updating int to long worked, and now I'm bona fide! >>>>> >>>>> So thanks. >>>> >>>> What you did happens to be sufficient for a particular environment >>>> (supposedly, x86-64 Linux) used both by yourself and by the >>>> server that >>>> tests results. >>>> In more general case, 'long' is not guaranteed to handle >>>> numbers in >>>> range up to 18,997,161,173 that can happen in this test. >>> >>> How did you determine that? >> >> By the language definition. > > Well, not exactly. > I never read C Standard docs except the very first one that I read > more that I read more than 33 years ago, so not very likely to > remember it literally. > Let's say that I know this particular bit of trivia from 1st hand > experience and from reading few ABI definitions. > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> 5.2.4.2.1 Sizes of integer types <limits.h> >> >> [...] >> >> ? minimum value for an object of type long int >> LONG_MIN >> -2147483647 // ?(231 ? 1) >> >> ? maximum value for an object of type long int >> LONG_MAX >> +2147483647 // 231 ? 1 >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> That is, the long int type is required to have a sign bit and at >> least 31 value bits, giving a guaranteed minimum range of >> -2147483647 to 2147483647. That's 2 thou mill. >> >> You can squeeze another bit out of it by going unsigned: 0 to >> 4294967295. That's 4 thou mill. >> >> From C99 onwards you can use long long int to give you 63 (or 64 >> for unsigned) value bits - printf with %lld or %llu. Roughly 9 >> mill mill mill and 18 mill mill mill respectively. > > I suspected that, but was not sure, so suggested to DFS a type that I am > sure about. The width of char and [un]signed char must be at least 8 bits. The width of [un]signed short must be at least 16 bits. The width of [un]signed int must be at least 16 bits. The width of [un]signed long must be at least 32 bits. The width of [un]signed long long must be at least 64 bits. That should be easy enough to remember now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-20 12:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vrh1br$35029$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391394 |
On 20/03/2025 12:09, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>> I suspected that, but was not sure, so suggested to DFS a type that I am
>> sure about.
>
> The width of char and [un]signed char must be at least 8 bits.
> The width of [un]signed short must be at least 16 bits.
> The width of [un]signed int must be at least 16 bits.
> The width of [un]signed long must be at least 32 bits.
> The width of [un]signed long long must be at least 64 bits.
>
> That should be easy enough to remember now.
That table suggests that any program mixing 'short' and 'int' is
suspect. If 'int' doesn't need to store values beyond 16 bits, then why
not use 'short'?
'long' is another troublesome one. If the need is for 32-bit values,
then it's surprisingly rare in source code.
In practice, most code now assumes that 'int' is 32 bits, and 'long' is
inadvisedly used for 64 bits, since its actual width is typically:
long
Windows 32-bit 32 bits
Windows 64-bit 32 bits
Linux 32-bit 32 bits
Linux 64-bit 64 bits
My suggestion for writing code that is not going to run on 16-bit or
lesser (or unusual) hardware is to assume:
char 8 bits
short 16 bits
int 32 bits
long long 64 bits
and to forget 'long'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-20 13:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <LRUCP.2$541.0@fx47.iad> |
| In reply to | #391397 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 20/03/2025 12:09, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > >>> I suspected that, but was not sure, so suggested to DFS a type that I am >>> sure about. >> >> The width of char and [un]signed char must be at least 8 bits. >> The width of [un]signed short must be at least 16 bits. >> The width of [un]signed int must be at least 16 bits. >> The width of [un]signed long must be at least 32 bits. >> The width of [un]signed long long must be at least 64 bits. >> >> That should be easy enough to remember now. > >That table suggests that any program mixing 'short' and 'int' is >suspect. If 'int' doesn't need to store values beyond 16 bits, then why >not use 'short'? > >'long' is another troublesome one. If the need is for 32-bit values, >then it's surprisingly rare in source code. Long is useless, because Microsoft made the mistake of defining 'long' as 32-bits on 64-bit architectures, while unix and linux define it as 64-bits. So long can't be used in programs intended to be portable to other operating systems. 'long long' is defined as a 64-bit type in both Windows and Linux. Using the defined width types is far better (e.g. uint64_t); even if the standard allows the type to not exist on a particular implementation. No useful implementation would fail to define uint64_t in these modern times.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-20 14:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vrh71t$3be42$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391400 |
On 20/03/2025 13:36, Scott Lurndal wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 20/03/2025 12:09, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >> >>>> I suspected that, but was not sure, so suggested to DFS a type that I am >>>> sure about. >>> >>> The width of char and [un]signed char must be at least 8 bits. >>> The width of [un]signed short must be at least 16 bits. >>> The width of [un]signed int must be at least 16 bits. >>> The width of [un]signed long must be at least 32 bits. >>> The width of [un]signed long long must be at least 64 bits. >>> >>> That should be easy enough to remember now. >> >> That table suggests that any program mixing 'short' and 'int' is >> suspect. If 'int' doesn't need to store values beyond 16 bits, then why >> not use 'short'? >> >> 'long' is another troublesome one. If the need is for 32-bit values, >> then it's surprisingly rare in source code. > > Long is useless, because Microsoft made the mistake of defining > 'long' as 32-bits on 64-bit architectures, while unix and linux > define it as 64-bits. Unix and Linux define it as 32 bits on 32-bit architectures and 64 bits on 64-bit ones. > So long can't be used in programs intended to be portable to > other operating systems. As defined by Unix/Linux, long is not portable between different Unix/Linux OSes if they run on a different architecture. As defined by Microsoft, long is portable between Windows OSes even on different architectures. 'long long' is defined as a 64-bit > type in both Windows and Linux. > > Using the defined width types is far better (e.g. uint64_t); > even if the standard allows the type to not exist on a particular > implementation. No useful implementation would fail to define > uint64_t in these modern times. The point was made earlier on that int64_t types are awkward to work with; they need that stdint.h header to even exist, and they need those ugly macros in inttypes.h to print out their values. This is why it popular to just do: typedef long long int i64; and to use %lld to print, and -LL on literals to force a 64-bit type. stdint.h et al are just ungainly bolt-ons, not fully supported by the language. The problem with 'long' manifests itself there too, since on Linux, 'int64_t' appears to be commonly defined on top of 'long' for 32-bit systems, and 'long long' for 64-bit ones. So somebody eschewing those ugly macros and using "%ld" to print an 'int64_t' type, will find it doesn't work when run on a 64-bit system, where "%lld" is needed. Same problem with using '1L' to define an int64_t literal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-20 14:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <KFVCP.594649$SZca.498578@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #391401 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 20/03/2025 13:36, Scott Lurndal wrote: then it's surprisingly rare in source code. >> >> Long is useless, because Microsoft made the mistake of defining >> 'long' as 32-bits on 64-bit architectures, while unix and linux >> define it as 64-bits. > >Unix and Linux define it as 32 bits on 32-bit architectures and 64 bits >on 64-bit ones. That's what I said. Thanks for the confirmation. It doesn't change the fact that Microsoft didn't define long as 64-bit on 64-bit architectures, creating incompatibilities that didn't exist in the 32-bit world between the two dominant operating systems. Remainder of bart's typical windows-centric complaints elided.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-20 15:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vrhb77$3frk8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391402 |
On 20/03/2025 14:32, Scott Lurndal wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 20/03/2025 13:36, Scott Lurndal wrote: > then it's surprisingly rare in source code. >>> >>> Long is useless, because Microsoft made the mistake of defining >>> 'long' as 32-bits on 64-bit architectures, while unix and linux >>> define it as 64-bits. >> >> Unix and Linux define it as 32 bits on 32-bit architectures and 64 bits >> on 64-bit ones. > > That's what I said. Thanks for the confirmation. It doesn't change > the fact that Microsoft didn't define long as 64-bit on 64-bit architectures, > creating incompatibilities that didn't exist in the 32-bit world > between the two dominant operating systems. > > Remainder of bart's typical windows-centric complaints elided. > But your typical anti-Microsoft remarks are fine? Since you called it a 'mistake' to keep 'long' the same between 32/64-bit machines, even though both OSes kept 'int' the same. It was just a choice. Actually, my remarks didn't criticise either MS or Linux; just stated some facts. I did criticise STDINT types.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-24 16:37 +0100 |
| Subject | Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) |
| Message-ID | <vrru8f$174q6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391411 |
On 20.03.2025 16:11, bart wrote: > On 20/03/2025 14:32, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> On 20/03/2025 13:36, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> then it's surprisingly rare in source code. >>>> >>>> Long is useless, because Microsoft made the mistake of defining >>>> 'long' as 32-bits on 64-bit architectures, while unix and linux >>>> define it as 64-bits. >>> >>> Unix and Linux define it as 32 bits on 32-bit architectures and 64 bits >>> on 64-bit ones. >> >> That's what I said. Thanks for the confirmation. It doesn't change >> the fact that Microsoft didn't define long as 64-bit on 64-bit >> architectures, >> creating incompatibilities that didn't exist in the 32-bit world >> between the two dominant operating systems. >> >> Remainder of bart's typical windows-centric complaints elided. >> > > But your typical anti-Microsoft remarks are fine? Since you called it a > 'mistake' to keep 'long' the same between 32/64-bit machines, even > though both OSes kept 'int' the same. Many things (more or less related) come to my mind when reading that. Of primary interest here is certainly what the "C" standard defines. It's not that enlightening (IMO) what Microsoft did/does (or Linux); these are just two [common contemporary] examples. When I started with "C" or C++ there were not only 8-bit multiples defined for the integral types; there were 9 bit or 36 bit entities on some machines. And a 'int' type could be 16 or 32 bit (or 36 bit); 'int' reflected (sort of) the "machine register size". And the other types were woven around; 'short' not larger than 'int', 'long' not smaller than 'int'. Optimization considerations made it possible to have just a single actual size for all numeric integral types' sizes. Unless you are focused with your development on just a single machine architecture you may choose the appropriate types with their specific "C" language names. In our application cases we needed certainty about actual sizes, so (as many others did) we introduced our own types; like the entities that you find now defined in "types.h". (Back these days there was no "types.h" available.) Janis > [...] PS: I'm a bit late here, and a week absence made this thread already become a tapeworm (as so often). So later responses on that in this thread may be yet unnoticed by me and also got answered already or commented on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-24 16:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) |
| Message-ID | <hxfEP.100506$541.96197@fx47.iad> |
| In reply to | #391558 |
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>On 20.03.2025 16:11, bart wrote:
>> On 20/03/2025 14:32, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>> On 20/03/2025 13:36, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> then it's surprisingly rare in source code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Long is useless, because Microsoft made the mistake of defining
>>>>> 'long' as 32-bits on 64-bit architectures, while unix and linux
>>>>> define it as 64-bits.
>>>>
>>>> Unix and Linux define it as 32 bits on 32-bit architectures and 64 bits
>>>> on 64-bit ones.
>>>
>>> That's what I said. Thanks for the confirmation. It doesn't change
>>> the fact that Microsoft didn't define long as 64-bit on 64-bit
>>> architectures,
>>> creating incompatibilities that didn't exist in the 32-bit world
>>> between the two dominant operating systems.
>>>
>>> Remainder of bart's typical windows-centric complaints elided.
>>>
>>
>> But your typical anti-Microsoft remarks are fine? Since you called it a
>> 'mistake' to keep 'long' the same between 32/64-bit machines, even
>> though both OSes kept 'int' the same.
>
>Many things (more or less related) come to my mind when reading that.
>
>Of primary interest here is certainly what the "C" standard defines.
>It's not that enlightening (IMO) what Microsoft did/does (or Linux);
>these are just two [common contemporary] examples.
>
>When I started with "C" or C++ there were not only 8-bit multiples
>defined for the integral types; there were 9 bit or 36 bit entities
>on some machines. And a 'int' type could be 16 or 32 bit (or 36 bit);
>'int' reflected (sort of) the "machine register size". And the other
>types were woven around; 'short' not larger than 'int', 'long' not
>smaller than 'int'. Optimization considerations made it possible to
>have just a single actual size for all numeric integral types' sizes.
>
>Unless you are focused with your development on just a single machine
>architecture you may choose the appropriate types with their specific
>"C" language names.
>
>In our application cases we needed certainty about actual sizes, so
>(as many others did) we introduced our own types; like the entities
>that you find now defined in "types.h". (Back these days there was
>no "types.h" available.)
When would that have been?
/work/reference/usl/unix/v7/usr/include/sys/types.h
stdint.h came much later.
v7 types.h:
typedef long daddr_t; /* disk address */
typedef char * caddr_t; /* core address */
typedef unsigned int ino_t; /* i-node number */
typedef long time_t; /* a time */
typedef int label_t[6]; /* program status */
typedef int dev_t; /* device code */
typedef long off_t; /* offset in file */
/* selectors and constructor for device code */
#define major(x) (int)(((unsigned)x>>8))
#define minor(x) (int)(x&0377)
#define makedev(x,y) (dev_t)((x)<<8|(y))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-24 17:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) |
| Message-ID | <vrs0ns$19606$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391564 |
On 24.03.2025 17:14, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: >> On 20.03.2025 16:11, bart wrote: >>> On 20/03/2025 14:32, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>>> On 20/03/2025 13:36, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>>> then it's surprisingly rare in source code. >>>>>> >>>>>> Long is useless, because Microsoft made the mistake of defining >>>>>> 'long' as 32-bits on 64-bit architectures, while unix and linux >>>>>> define it as 64-bits. >>>>> >>>>> Unix and Linux define it as 32 bits on 32-bit architectures and 64 bits >>>>> on 64-bit ones. >>>> >>>> That's what I said. Thanks for the confirmation. It doesn't change >>>> the fact that Microsoft didn't define long as 64-bit on 64-bit >>>> architectures, >>>> creating incompatibilities that didn't exist in the 32-bit world >>>> between the two dominant operating systems. >>>> >>>> Remainder of bart's typical windows-centric complaints elided. >>>> >>> >>> But your typical anti-Microsoft remarks are fine? Since you called it a >>> 'mistake' to keep 'long' the same between 32/64-bit machines, even >>> though both OSes kept 'int' the same. >> >> Many things (more or less related) come to my mind when reading that. >> >> Of primary interest here is certainly what the "C" standard defines. >> It's not that enlightening (IMO) what Microsoft did/does (or Linux); >> these are just two [common contemporary] examples. >> >> When I started with "C" or C++ there were not only 8-bit multiples >> defined for the integral types; there were 9 bit or 36 bit entities >> on some machines. And a 'int' type could be 16 or 32 bit (or 36 bit); >> 'int' reflected (sort of) the "machine register size". And the other >> types were woven around; 'short' not larger than 'int', 'long' not >> smaller than 'int'. Optimization considerations made it possible to >> have just a single actual size for all numeric integral types' sizes. >> >> Unless you are focused with your development on just a single machine >> architecture you may choose the appropriate types with their specific >> "C" language names. >> >> In our application cases we needed certainty about actual sizes, so >> (as many others did) we introduced our own types; like the entities >> that you find now defined in "types.h". (Back these days there was >> no "types.h" available.) > > When would that have been? Oh, right! - It was existing, and we were actually also using it; there's a couple types we needed. (Thanks for catching that.) I don't think it had all the sized types like 'u_int8_t' defined. Or did we all just miss it back these days to have it reimplemented like so many did? Janis > > /work/reference/usl/unix/v7/usr/include/sys/types.h > > stdint.h came much later. > > v7 types.h: > > typedef long daddr_t; /* disk address */ > typedef char * caddr_t; /* core address */ > typedef unsigned int ino_t; /* i-node number */ > typedef long time_t; /* a time */ > typedef int label_t[6]; /* program status */ > typedef int dev_t; /* device code */ > typedef long off_t; /* offset in file */ > /* selectors and constructor for device code */ > #define major(x) (int)(((unsigned)x>>8)) > #define minor(x) (int)(x&0377) > #define makedev(x,y) (dev_t)((x)<<8|(y)) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-24 21:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) |
| Message-ID | <86o6xpk8sn.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #391558 |
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: [...] > When I started with "C" or C++ there were not only 8-bit > multiples defined for the integral types; [...] In C the correct phrase is integer types, not integral types. The constant 3.0, for example, has an integral value, but it does not have an integer value.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-25 08:45 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) |
| Message-ID | <vrtmu4$2s1q2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391586 |
On 25.03.2025 05:56, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: > > [...] > >> When I started with "C" or C++ there were not only 8-bit >> multiples defined for the integral types; [...] > > In C the correct phrase is integer types, not integral types. My apologies if I'm using language independent terms. I'm confident, though, that most people (obviously you as well) understood the term. I understand that the "C" standard may have consistently been using another naming. - Frankly, I'm a bit puzzled that general (language independent) terms are considered "incorrect" by the audience here. > The constant 3.0, for example, has an integral value, but it > does not have an integer value. The literal "3.0" is usually not representing the value of an integral [data] type like 'int'.[*] (You are speaking about "integral value" here, I was speaking about the "integral [data] types". Not sure why you shifted the goalpost.) Janis [*] For languages that don't have a distinguished integral numeric data type, or that do implicit coercion, things may be different of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-25 09:08 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) |
| Message-ID | <vrto9i$2s5rg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391589 |
On 25/03/2025 08:45, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 25.03.2025 05:56, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: >> >> [...] >> >>> When I started with "C" or C++ there were not only 8-bit >>> multiples defined for the integral types; [...] >> >> In C the correct phrase is integer types, not integral types. > > My apologies if I'm using language independent terms. I'm confident, > though, that most people (obviously you as well) understood the term. > > I understand that the "C" standard may have consistently been using > another naming. - Frankly, I'm a bit puzzled that general (language > independent) terms are considered "incorrect" by the audience here. > Most of the audience here, I believe, are usually happy when it is obvious what you mean. But many here can be very pedantic - that's a very useful trait in its place, and annoying when out of place. If you stray /too/ far from the C standard terminology, then readers have to start making assumptions about what you mean, and then it is worth checking or correcting. And then there are terms that can have very specific meanings in C that don't quite match up with the word in general language, such as "constant" - then it can again be worth the effort to be precise. I personally can't see this being a case where there is anything to be gained from correcting your language. I'm fairly sure that you already know that the C terminology is "integer types", or would quickly see that in any situation where that were relevant (such as when searching in a pdf of the C standards). And I can't imagine anyone misunderstood you, or had to waste significant cognitive effort to see what you meant. >> The constant 3.0, for example, has an integral value, but it >> does not have an integer value. > > The literal "3.0" is usually not representing the value of an integral > [data] type like 'int'.[*] > Yes. Here, Tim is using "integral" to mean a number (in the mathematical sense) that happens to be an integer (in the mathematical sense). It is a characteristic of the value, independent of any C type used to represent it, and it turns up a fair number of times in the C standards (mostly in connection with floating point library functions). > (You are speaking about "integral value" here, I was speaking about > the "integral [data] types". Not sure why you shifted the goalpost.) > I'm guessing Tim is trying to be helpful by showing you the difference between the words "integer" and "integral".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-25 19:55 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) |
| Message-ID | <vruu6s$3umpc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391590 |
On 25.03.2025 09:08, David Brown wrote: > On 25/03/2025 08:45, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >> On 25.03.2025 05:56, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> When I started with "C" or C++ there were not only 8-bit >>>> multiples defined for the integral types; [...] >>> >>> In C the correct phrase is integer types, not integral types. >> >> My apologies if I'm using language independent terms. I'm confident, >> though, that most people (obviously you as well) understood the term. >> >> I understand that the "C" standard may have consistently been using >> another naming. - Frankly, I'm a bit puzzled that general (language >> independent) terms are considered "incorrect" by the audience here. > > Most of the audience here, I believe, are usually happy when it is > obvious what you mean. But many here can be very pedantic - that's a > very useful trait in its place, and annoying when out of place. One thing I dislike [in this newsgroup] (but have to accept of course) is that even posts that have a simple, isolated topic become tapeworms and often contain boring ping-pong discussions. Pedantism is one thing that fosters the evolution of such CLC-typical threads. I think it's fine if we are speaking about standards, or specific "C" instances. But in cases where it's very obviously not specifically related to "C" I perceive such distracting responses to be more like trollish than useful. And in cases where the used terms are clearly understandable (even to "C"-only nerds) I'd appreciate if we could focus on the topic. > If you stray /too/ far from the C standard terminology, [...] My strong opinion is that the more general CS topics are best not discussed in specific terminology. (I'm sure that mileages vary.) Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-26 09:18 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) |
| Message-ID | <vs0d95$1avlc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391626 |
On 25/03/2025 19:55, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 25.03.2025 09:08, David Brown wrote: >> On 25/03/2025 08:45, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >>> On 25.03.2025 05:56, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> When I started with "C" or C++ there were not only 8-bit >>>>> multiples defined for the integral types; [...] >>>> >>>> In C the correct phrase is integer types, not integral types. >>> >>> My apologies if I'm using language independent terms. I'm confident, >>> though, that most people (obviously you as well) understood the term. >>> >>> I understand that the "C" standard may have consistently been using >>> another naming. - Frankly, I'm a bit puzzled that general (language >>> independent) terms are considered "incorrect" by the audience here. >> >> Most of the audience here, I believe, are usually happy when it is >> obvious what you mean. But many here can be very pedantic - that's a >> very useful trait in its place, and annoying when out of place. > > One thing I dislike [in this newsgroup] (but have to accept of course) > is that even posts that have a simple, isolated topic become tapeworms > and often contain boring ping-pong discussions. A strong sign of this is when there are only two posters (or worse, just one) in a thread branch. Sometimes a thread branches into unrelated topics, and sometimes it can be interesting to at least some people - even if it is off-topic. There are some half-dozen contributors in this branch, so it clearly has /some/ interest. > Pedantism is one thing > that fosters the evolution of such CLC-typical threads. I think it's > fine if we are speaking about standards, or specific "C" instances. > Agreed. > But in cases where it's very obviously not specifically related to "C" > I perceive such distracting responses to be more like trollish than > useful. > That can be the case. I believe Tim intended to be helpful with his post - but I don't think he is always a good judge of what is actually helpful, or how some of his posts will be received. > And in cases where the used terms are clearly understandable (even to > "C"-only nerds) I'd appreciate if we could focus on the topic. > >> If you stray /too/ far from the C standard terminology, [...] > > My strong opinion is that the more general CS topics are best not > discussed in specific terminology. (I'm sure that mileages vary.) > That seems reasonable to me. However, unless it is made clear in a post, anything written in comp.lang.c should be seen in reference to C specifically, rather than programming in general. Thus if I someone here uses the word "function", we assume - unless told otherwise - that they are referring to a C function as described in the C standards, rather than more general CS usage, or a mathematical function, or a wedding party. (To be clear - I don't think you did stray from the C standard terminology, though you used an outdated term, and I don't think there was any way to misinterpret what you meant.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-25 08:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) |
| Message-ID | <20250325011327.41@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #391589 |
On 2025-03-25, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 25.03.2025 05:56, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> When I started with "C" or C++ there were not only 8-bit
>>> multiples defined for the integral types; [...]
>>
>> In C the correct phrase is integer types, not integral types.
>
> My apologies if I'm using language independent terms. I'm confident,
> though, that most people (obviously you as well) understood the term.
You are 100% correct. You made it clear that you're referring
to a time /when you started with C/. I remember from past discussions
that this was sufficiently long ago that it was ISO C90 or ANSI C,
if not earlier.
In ISO 9899:1990, we have this:
6.1.2.5 Types
[...]
"The type char, the signed and unsigned integer types. and the
enumerated types are collectively called integral types."
^^^^^^^^
The integral types were renamed between C90 and C99. However, "integral
types" remains part of C history. C90 is a still valid, historic and
historically significant dialect of C.
Even today, it is misleading to say that "integral types"
is an incorrect way to talk about C. It's a terminology that
has been formally superseded since C90. However, it is a term
used in computer science and mathematics, and fine for informal
discussions that don't revolve around language-lawyering.
The word has two pronunciations in English. When the emphasis is on the
first syllalble: IN-tgrl, it is a noun which refers to the opposite of a
calculus derivative. The integral of x^2 from 0 to 1, etc.
in-TE-gral is an adjective, which is is a common words---it's an
integral part of everyday English, meaning indivisible from. In math and
CS it is used for indicating that some quantity is in Z.
The C99 and subsquent standards do contain numerous uses of the word
"integral" in that sense:
"The ldexp functions multiply a floating-point number by an integral
power of 2"
"The modf functions break the argument value into integral and
fractional parts"
"When a finite value of real floating type is converted to an integer
type other than _Bool, the fractional part is discarded (i.e., the
value is truncated toward zero). If the value of the integral part
cannot be represented by the integer type, the behavior is
undefined."
I suspect they renamed the integral types to integer types in order
to dissociate the abstract property from the type. The integral
part coming out of modf is not an integer; it is of type double!
--
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 | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-25 03:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) |
| Message-ID | <86jz8djsd7.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #391591 |
Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes: > On 2025-03-25, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On 25.03.2025 05:56, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> >>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>> When I started with "C" or C++ there were not only 8-bit >>>> multiples defined for the integral types; [...] >>> >>> In C the correct phrase is integer types, not integral types. >> >> My apologies if I'm using language independent terms. I'm >> confident, though, that most people (obviously you as well) >> understood the term. > > You are 100% correct. You made it clear that you're referring to > a time /when you started with C/. I remember from past discussions > that this was sufficiently long ago that it was ISO C90 or ANSI C, > if not earlier. > > In ISO 9899:1990, we have this: > > 6.1.2.5 Types > > [...] > > "The type char, the signed and unsigned integer types. and the > enumerated types are collectively called integral types." > ^^^^^^^^ > > The integral types were renamed between C90 and C99. However, > "integral types" remains part of C history. C90 is a still valid, > historic and historically significant dialect of C. > > Even today, it is misleading to say that "integral types" is an > incorrect way to talk about C. It's a terminology that has been > formally superseded since C90. [...] Definitely not. Neither "integer" nor "integral" are terms defined by the C standard; rather they are meant to be read in the sense of ordinary English. The word "integral" was not superseded by the C99 standard, but _corrected_ because "integral" is wrong and "integer" is right, in the contexts in which those words are used. What was done is just like what was done when "one's complement" was changed to "ones' complement" - the change was made to reflect correct English usage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-25 13:11 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) |
| Message-ID | <20250325131110.000056bd@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #391591 |
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 08:39:04 -0000 (UTC) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote: > On 2025-03-25, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > On 25.03.2025 05:56, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: > >> > >> [...] > >> > >>> When I started with "C" or C++ there were not only 8-bit > >>> multiples defined for the integral types; [...] > >> > >> In C the correct phrase is integer types, not integral types. > > > > My apologies if I'm using language independent terms. I'm confident, > > though, that most people (obviously you as well) understood the > > term. > > You are 100% correct. You made it clear that you're referring > to a time /when you started with C/. I remember from past discussions > that this was sufficiently long ago that it was ISO C90 or ANSI C, > if not earlier. > > In ISO 9899:1990, we have this: > > 6.1.2.5 Types > > [...] > > "The type char, the signed and unsigned integer types. and the > enumerated types are collectively called integral types." > ^^^^^^^^ > > The integral types were renamed between C90 and C99. However, > "integral types" remains part of C history. C90 is a still valid, > historic and historically significant dialect of C. > > Even today, it is misleading to say that "integral types" > is an incorrect way to talk about C. It's a terminology that > has been formally superseded since C90. However, it is a term > used in computer science and mathematics, and fine for informal > discussions that don't revolve around language-lawyering. > > The word has two pronunciations in English. When the emphasis is on > the first syllalble: IN-tgrl, it is a noun which refers to the > opposite of a calculus derivative. The integral of x^2 from 0 to 1, > etc. in-TE-gral is an adjective, which is is a common words---it's an > integral part of everyday English, meaning indivisible from. In math > and CS it is used for indicating that some quantity is in Z. > Wouldn't the term 'whole numbers' be preferred in everyday English?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-25 05:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) |
| Message-ID | <86bjtpjp22.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #391599 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 08:39:04 -0000 (UTC) > Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote: > >> On 2025-03-25, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 25.03.2025 05:56, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> >>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>> When I started with "C" or C++ there were not only 8-bit >>>>> multiples defined for the integral types; [...] >>>> >>>> In C the correct phrase is integer types, not integral types. >>> >>> My apologies if I'm using language independent terms. I'm confident, >>> though, that most people (obviously you as well) understood the >>> term. >> >> You are 100% correct. You made it clear that you're referring >> to a time /when you started with C/. I remember from past discussions >> that this was sufficiently long ago that it was ISO C90 or ANSI C, >> if not earlier. >> >> In ISO 9899:1990, we have this: >> >> 6.1.2.5 Types >> >> [...] >> >> "The type char, the signed and unsigned integer types. and the >> enumerated types are collectively called integral types." >> ^^^^^^^^ >> >> The integral types were renamed between C90 and C99. However, >> "integral types" remains part of C history. C90 is a still valid, >> historic and historically significant dialect of C. >> >> Even today, it is misleading to say that "integral types" >> is an incorrect way to talk about C. It's a terminology that >> has been formally superseded since C90. However, it is a term >> used in computer science and mathematics, and fine for informal >> discussions that don't revolve around language-lawyering. >> >> The word has two pronunciations in English. When the emphasis is on >> the first syllalble: IN-tgrl, it is a noun which refers to the >> opposite of a calculus derivative. The integral of x^2 from 0 to 1, >> etc. in-TE-gral is an adjective, which is is a common words---it's an >> integral part of everyday English, meaning indivisible from. In math >> and CS it is used for indicating that some quantity is in Z. > > Wouldn't the term 'whole numbers' be preferred in everyday English? "Whole numbers" are all non-negative. "Integers" include values less than zero.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-25 16:33 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) |
| Message-ID | <vruid4$3iuvq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391603 |
On 25/03/2025 13:02, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > >> On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 08:39:04 -0000 (UTC) >> Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2025-03-25, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 25.03.2025 05:56, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>> >>>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>> When I started with "C" or C++ there were not only 8-bit >>>>>> multiples defined for the integral types; [...] >>>>> >>>>> In C the correct phrase is integer types, not integral types. >>>> >>>> My apologies if I'm using language independent terms. I'm confident, >>>> though, that most people (obviously you as well) understood the >>>> term. >>> >>> You are 100% correct. You made it clear that you're referring >>> to a time /when you started with C/. I remember from past discussions >>> that this was sufficiently long ago that it was ISO C90 or ANSI C, >>> if not earlier. >>> >>> In ISO 9899:1990, we have this: >>> >>> 6.1.2.5 Types >>> >>> [...] >>> >>> "The type char, the signed and unsigned integer types. and the >>> enumerated types are collectively called integral types." >>> ^^^^^^^^ >>> >>> The integral types were renamed between C90 and C99. However, >>> "integral types" remains part of C history. C90 is a still valid, >>> historic and historically significant dialect of C. >>> >>> Even today, it is misleading to say that "integral types" >>> is an incorrect way to talk about C. It's a terminology that >>> has been formally superseded since C90. However, it is a term >>> used in computer science and mathematics, and fine for informal >>> discussions that don't revolve around language-lawyering. >>> >>> The word has two pronunciations in English. When the emphasis is on >>> the first syllalble: IN-tgrl, it is a noun which refers to the >>> opposite of a calculus derivative. The integral of x^2 from 0 to 1, >>> etc. in-TE-gral is an adjective, which is is a common words---it's an >>> integral part of everyday English, meaning indivisible from. In math >>> and CS it is used for indicating that some quantity is in Z. >> >> Wouldn't the term 'whole numbers' be preferred in everyday English? > > "Whole numbers" are all non-negative. > > "Integers" include values less than zero. "Everyday English" does not cover negative numbers at all - in "everyday English", "integer" and "whole number" are basically synonymous and mean 1, 2, 3, etc. But in standard mathematical usage, "whole numbers" are non-negative, while "integers" include negative numbers. (There is no solid agreement about whether 0 is a "whole number" or not.) And I think it is reasonable to expect that people using functions like "modf" are familiar with the mathematical usage, so the term "integer" - or the adjective variant "integral" - are fine. Whether the word "integer" or "integral" is most suitable in a particular context, will depend on common usage in related contexts, and probably also vary from place to place (such as between common US usage and common British usage). The word "integral" is not used as a noun (in the sense of "whole number"), but both words can be used as adjectives. So "integer type" and "integral type" would work fine - but "integer type" is the more common usage in computer programming. Similarly, it would be fine for the C standards to say "The modf functions break the argument value into /integer/ and fractional parts" rather than "/integral/ and fractional parts". However, the word "integral" is perhaps better here because it is distinct from the use of "integer" as a type, to reduce confusion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-25 20:04 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) |
| Message-ID | <vruuok$3vba1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391613 |
On 25.03.2025 16:33, David Brown wrote: > On 25/03/2025 13:02, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >>> >>> Wouldn't the term 'whole numbers' be preferred in everyday English? >> >> "Whole numbers" are all non-negative. >> >> "Integers" include values less than zero. > > "Everyday English" does not cover negative numbers at all - in "everyday > English", "integer" and "whole number" are basically synonymous and mean > 1, 2, 3, etc. > > But in standard mathematical usage, "whole numbers" are non-negative, > while "integers" include negative numbers. (There is no solid agreement > about whether 0 is a "whole number" or not.) [...] This all is interesting. - As a non-native English speaker that's not obvious. - Where I live we have learned ℕ (called "natural numbers"): 1, 2, ... ℕ with an index 0 (positive/non-negative whole numbers): 0, 1, 2, ... ℤ (integer numbers, called "whole numbers"): ..., -1, 0, 1, 2, ... Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web