Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #393426 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-05-20 16:06 +1000 |
| Last post | 2025-05-24 22:10 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 343 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 16:06 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-20 07:27 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 19:33 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 00:10 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 10:23 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 03:37 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 20:00 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-22 06:49 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-22 07:02 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Jakob Bohm <egenagwemdimtapsar@jbohm.dk> - 2025-08-17 21:04 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-18 00:30 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-08-19 18:09 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-21 19:51 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-22 05:04 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-22 14:13 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-22 22:46 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-22 19:07 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-22 23:15 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-23 09:26 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-23 00:44 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-24 02:26 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-22 20:10 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-23 02:08 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-23 19:29 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-24 00:08 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-31 08:20 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-31 21:42 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-01 07:58 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-01 07:43 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-02 09:35 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-02 15:24 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-06-02 19:14 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-02 23:54 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-06-03 01:02 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-03 19:41 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-03 18:25 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-06 10:29 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-06 14:10 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-06 19:10 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-06 17:24 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-06 19:26 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-06-07 04:04 +0800
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-07 06:24 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-06-07 19:58 +0800
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-07 18:31 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 02:43 +0800
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-07 21:22 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 03:56 +0800
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-07 23:57 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 10:06 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-06-08 08:55 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 17:02 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-06-08 15:08 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 17:18 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-06-09 09:20 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-09 12:58 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-08 16:55 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-06-08 17:45 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-06-10 03:21 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 22:07 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-06-09 07:13 +0800
Re: encapsulating directory operations Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-06-09 10:21 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-09 13:01 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 22:52 +0800
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 17:06 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-06-09 00:28 +0800
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 22:05 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-06-09 06:51 +0800
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-09 07:59 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-09 13:04 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-06-07 23:12 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 17:11 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-08 16:58 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 11:48 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 22:09 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-09 14:01 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-09 17:24 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-09 15:53 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-09 19:45 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-09 18:33 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-09 20:39 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-06-10 07:21 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-10 13:19 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-06-10 14:46 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-10 12:08 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-06-10 20:22 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-06-09 19:22 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-06-09 18:59 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-10 09:51 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-03 00:37 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-10 14:07 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-10 14:36 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-10 16:40 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-06-10 16:52 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-10 23:33 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-11 07:07 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-11 05:34 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-11 13:41 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-11 17:33 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-12 01:33 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 02:18 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-20 10:33 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 19:45 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-20 13:42 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-20 13:55 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-20 15:05 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-05-20 14:09 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 00:15 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 00:48 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-20 16:02 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 01:28 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-23 05:43 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-23 14:27 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-23 22:32 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-24 06:54 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-28 05:41 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-28 14:10 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-06-11 20:15 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2025-05-26 15:19 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-27 16:23 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-27 18:10 +0300
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-27 19:24 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-27 16:16 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-28 16:04 +0300
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-28 22:54 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-29 10:21 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-06-06 17:16 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-06-06 17:26 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-27 16:18 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 19:36 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-20 14:23 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 23:47 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-20 15:37 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 01:11 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-20 16:43 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 07:15 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-20 22:50 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 01:11 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-20 22:40 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-21 05:50 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-21 10:06 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-21 09:27 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-20 18:19 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-20 17:43 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-20 17:14 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-20 18:20 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-20 17:51 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-20 19:50 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-20 19:34 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-21 10:09 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-20 16:51 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-20 16:58 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-20 18:09 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-20 17:48 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-20 19:34 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 07:51 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-21 05:31 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 20:08 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-21 11:28 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-21 17:00 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-21 16:37 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-21 16:03 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-21 20:21 +0300
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-22 06:37 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-22 17:53 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-21 10:27 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 20:46 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-21 16:46 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 07:41 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 15:02 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 01:05 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 19:23 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-29 07:21 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-29 15:06 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-30 18:41 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 08:09 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 00:12 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 10:25 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 01:03 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-06 17:58 -0800
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-20 13:53 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 00:12 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 14:41 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 08:38 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 09:09 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 16:22 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-21 00:18 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 10:31 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 01:02 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 16:18 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 09:57 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 22:41 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 20:41 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 11:06 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 11:22 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-21 20:58 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-23 07:10 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-22 15:32 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-23 09:16 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-22 18:38 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-26 08:12 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-25 15:34 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-26 09:01 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-05-25 23:25 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-23 02:28 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-22 21:27 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-23 07:08 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-22 22:20 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-23 07:43 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-26 07:54 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-25 15:29 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-26 08:40 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-26 03:29 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-26 11:46 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-26 09:43 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-26 17:16 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-05-26 04:05 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-26 08:31 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-26 03:37 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Harnden <richard.harnden@gmail.invalid> - 2025-05-23 16:09 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-23 17:50 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-23 16:57 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-23 18:00 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-23 17:22 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-23 11:10 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-23 20:27 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-23 21:35 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-23 21:10 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-23 23:13 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-23 22:22 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-24 06:46 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-29 07:27 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-29 09:39 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-29 09:37 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-29 06:11 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-29 13:41 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-29 15:08 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-29 17:36 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-29 17:18 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-29 18:51 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-05-29 14:31 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-05-29 14:29 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-29 13:38 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-29 12:55 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-29 18:48 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-30 03:10 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-30 11:20 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-30 11:54 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-30 16:02 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-30 16:26 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-30 17:42 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-30 17:39 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-07-01 10:09 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-30 18:04 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-29 21:24 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-29 23:24 +0300
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-29 21:27 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-29 13:45 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-29 22:09 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-29 21:19 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-29 22:40 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-30 18:18 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-30 22:10 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-06-04 19:23 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-04 13:05 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-06-05 00:00 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-06-04 17:30 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Josef Möllers <josef@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-04 20:48 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-04 21:09 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-06-05 08:18 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-06-05 04:58 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-06-04 19:19 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-06-05 05:24 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-06-04 21:30 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-04 22:38 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-06-05 19:31 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-06-05 08:32 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-06-05 19:28 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-06-05 20:25 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-06-06 03:26 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-04 23:22 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-04 23:48 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-06-10 07:18 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-29 14:50 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-30 00:05 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-30 17:37 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-05-30 17:25 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-30 17:39 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-30 17:32 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-05-30 02:46 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-30 03:42 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-30 07:34 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-23 21:10 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-23 21:31 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-23 22:05 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-24 01:27 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-06-10 08:52 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-10 13:35 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-06-10 21:34 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-10 15:09 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-06-11 01:16 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-10 19:11 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-06-11 15:23 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-11 11:57 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-06-11 15:32 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-03 04:39 -0800
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-23 08:44 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-23 08:06 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-22 18:24 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-23 02:19 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-21 19:31 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-23 07:45 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-21 13:59 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-23 07:52 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-23 01:18 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-26 09:48 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-26 00:15 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-26 11:50 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-29 07:26 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-30 18:47 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-21 02:21 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 22:49 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 20:44 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-21 12:06 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 11:15 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-21 21:02 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-21 19:49 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 19:38 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-20 22:26 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 03:32 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 19:50 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-22 00:03 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Jakob Bohm <egenagwemdimtapsar@jbohm.dk> - 2025-05-22 02:20 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-22 02:53 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 22:14 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Jakob Bohm <egenagwemdimtapsar@jbohm.dk> - 2025-08-17 22:34 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-05-21 21:19 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-23 01:17 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-21 04:35 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 19:45 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-21 17:07 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-22 20:34 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-24 22:10 -0700
Page 13 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 18 Next page →
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-29 14:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <101ajmq$2gb1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393640 |
On 5/29/2025 9:36 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 29/05/2025 16:08, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >>> On 29/05/2025 11:11, James Kuyper wrote: >>>> On 5/29/25 05:37, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 29 May 2025 09:39:51 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>> Is C90 perfect? No, of course not. >>>>> >>>>> Is there some value in that particular state of imperfection? Like the >>>>> Amish, whose concept of the ideal level of technology is the one >>>>> that was >>>>> in effect at the time they were founded? And who have remained >>>>> stuck at >>>>> that point in time ever since? >>>> >>>> That's not actually the case. The Amish have slowly adopted more >>>> advanced levels of technology as the people around them have adopted >>>> farm more advanced ones. The important thing, from their point of view, >>>> it not a particular level of technology, but to maintain a clear >>>> distinction between them and the non-Amish. >>>> Which means that they are more adaptable than Richard is. >>> >>> They use a lot of C++, do they? >> >> They do love power tools. > > :-) > > If you want to take down a tree in a hurry, a chainsaw is just the job, > but more delicate work requires more delicate tools. > > More to the point, if you have a million lines of legacy code all > written in C90, it's a bloody good idea to keep a C90 compiler around > because maintenance. > The Amish, from Family Guy: https://youtu.be/-wlwtpH1ldM LOL! They are quite efficient!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-29 14:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <101ajjj$2gb1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393633 |
On 5/29/2025 5:41 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 29/05/2025 11:11, James Kuyper wrote: >> On 5/29/25 05:37, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Thu, 29 May 2025 09:39:51 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> ... >>>> Is C90 perfect? No, of course not. >>> >>> Is there some value in that particular state of imperfection? Like the >>> Amish, whose concept of the ideal level of technology is the one that >>> was >>> in effect at the time they were founded? And who have remained stuck at >>> that point in time ever since? >> >> That's not actually the case. The Amish have slowly adopted more >> advanced levels of technology as the people around them have adopted >> farm more advanced ones. The important thing, from their point of view, >> it not a particular level of technology, but to maintain a clear >> distinction between them and the non-Amish. >> Which means that they are more adaptable than Richard is. > > They use a lot of C++, do they? > ROFL!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-29 13:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1019kgf$3s5co$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393625 |
On 29/05/2025 10:37, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Thu, 29 May 2025 09:39:51 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote: > >> On 29/05/2025 08:27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 23 May 2025 23:13:20 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> >>>> And who cares about future instability if C90 remains just as stable >>>> as ever it was? >>> >>> Even with the problems with const? >>> >>> char *strstr(const char *haystack, const char *needle); >>> >>> Dennis Ritchie pointed out the trouble with that. >> >> Is C90 perfect? No, of course not. > > Is there some value in that particular state of imperfection? Yes. > Like the > Amish, whose concept of the ideal level of technology is the one that was > in effect at the time they were founded? And who have remained stuck at > that point in time ever since? No, not even remotely like that. If I want C++, I know where to find it. If I want Python, I know where to find it. If I want Rust, I know where to find it. You can have new tools without breaking the old ones. We didn't have to change BCPL to get B, or B to get C, or C to get D or C++. This really is a very simple point, but perhaps a simple analogy will help to clarify it. You don't throw out your 3/4" just because you've bought a 19mm. There is room for both in the toolbox, and why write 3/4" on your new spanner? It /isn't/ a 3/4" spanner even though it's very like it, so why pretend otherwise? -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-29 12:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <101a3hd$3upcg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393632 |
On 5/29/25 08:38, Richard Heathfield wrote: ... > You can have new tools without breaking the old ones. We didn't > have to change BCPL to get B, or B to get C, or C to get D or C++. > > This really is a very simple point, but perhaps a simple analogy > will help to clarify it. You don't throw out your 3/4" just > because you've bought a 19mm. There is room for both in the > toolbox, and why write 3/4" on your new spanner? It /isn't/ a > 3/4" spanner even though it's very like it, so why pretend otherwise? That's why C99 is called C99, to distinguish it from C90 (and similarly for later versions). None of those revisions is large enough to justify giving the revised language an entirely new name.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-29 18:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <101a6lf$3vta3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393641 |
On 29/05/2025 17:55, James Kuyper wrote: > On 5/29/25 08:38, Richard Heathfield wrote: > ... >> You can have new tools without breaking the old ones. We didn't >> have to change BCPL to get B, or B to get C, or C to get D or C++. >> >> This really is a very simple point, but perhaps a simple analogy >> will help to clarify it. You don't throw out your 3/4" just >> because you've bought a 19mm. There is room for both in the >> toolbox, and why write 3/4" on your new spanner? It /isn't/ a >> 3/4" spanner even though it's very like it, so why pretend otherwise? > > That's why C99 is called C99, to distinguish it from C90 (and similarly > for later versions). Yes, I realise that. Obviously, we disagree about whether it's enough of a distinction to do the job. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-30 03:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <101b7ic$9rve$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393632 |
On Thu, 29 May 2025 13:38:37 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote: > This really is a very simple point, but perhaps a simple analogy > will help to clarify it. You don't throw out your 3/4" just > because you've bought a 19mm. There is room for both in the > toolbox, and why write 3/4" on your new spanner? It /isn't/ a > 3/4" spanner even though it's very like it, so why pretend otherwise? Let me clarify your analogy with another analogy: a language compiler is just like a spanner. Anything you can say about one, applies equally to another. The difference is, old language compilers can get worn, but spanners stay bright and new forever. Also, 19mm spanners are upward-compatible with ¾” ones, aren’t they? Any nuts you can handle with the old one, you can deal with using the new one, can’t you? Because argument by analogy works like that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-30 11:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <101bt9c$dckn$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393632 |
On 29/05/2025 14:38, Richard Heathfield wrote: > This really is a very simple point, but perhaps a simple analogy will > help to clarify it. You don't throw out your 3/4" just because you've > bought a 19mm. There is room for both in the toolbox, and why write 3/4" > on your new spanner? It /isn't/ a 3/4" spanner even though it's very > like it, so why pretend otherwise? > Your analogy does not cover C99 vs C90. You have a good 3/4" spanner. You don't throw it out just because you also get an adjustable spanner - sometimes the 3/4" spanner is more practical, or perhaps a bit stronger. That's keeping C when you also have C++ available. You have a good 3/4" spanner. Now you get a new 3/4" spanner that is made of stronger steel, has a more comfortable grip, and has a box/ring at the other end which the old spanner did not. You probably won't throw out the old spanner, but most of the time you will now use the new spanner. That's C99 vs C90. Sometimes, of course, we have non-rational reasons for a preference. Maybe you just like using the old spanner because you've had it since you were a kid and there's an emotional attachment. Or maybe you don't like the shade of grey of the new spanner. That, of course, is fine - when something is good enough for the job, you don't need something better and can make the choice for any other personal reason. It is just very difficult for other people to understand such choices.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-30 11:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <101c2p8$eeca$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393672 |
On 30/05/2025 10:20, David Brown wrote:
> On 29/05/2025 14:38, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
>> This really is a very simple point, but perhaps a simple
>> analogy will help to clarify it. You don't throw out your 3/4"
>> just because you've bought a 19mm. There is room for both in
>> the toolbox, and why write 3/4" on your new spanner? It /isn't/
>> a 3/4" spanner even though it's very like it, so why pretend
>> otherwise?
>>
>
> Your analogy does not cover C99 vs C90.
It does if we can construct a program that is legal C90 but not
legal C99, which is easy enough, or (slightly harder but still
not that hard) a program that is legal in both dialects but which
gives different output under C99 than it does for C90.
$ cat c9099.c;gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -o c90 c9099.c;gcc -o
c99 c9099.c;./c90;./c99
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int a = 42;
int b = a //* comment */ 6;
;
printf("Soln = %d\n", b);
return 0;
}
Soln = 7
Soln = 42
Obviously it's a contrived example, but then examples pointing
out the consequences of language differences invariably are.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-30 16:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <101cdpa$gnh8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393673 |
On 30/05/2025 12:54, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 30/05/2025 10:20, David Brown wrote:
>> On 29/05/2025 14:38, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>>> This really is a very simple point, but perhaps a simple analogy will
>>> help to clarify it. You don't throw out your 3/4" just because you've
>>> bought a 19mm. There is room for both in the toolbox, and why write
>>> 3/4" on your new spanner? It /isn't/ a 3/4" spanner even though it's
>>> very like it, so why pretend otherwise?
>>>
>>
>> Your analogy does not cover C99 vs C90.
>
> It does if we can construct a program that is legal C90 but not legal
> C99, which is easy enough, or (slightly harder but still not that hard)
> a program that is legal in both dialects but which gives different
> output under C99 than it does for C90.
>
> $ cat c9099.c;gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -o c90 c9099.c;gcc -o c99
> c9099.c;./c90;./c99
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int main(void)
> {
> int a = 42;
>
> int b = a //* comment */ 6;
> ;
> printf("Soln = %d\n", b);
>
> return 0;
> }
> Soln = 7
> Soln = 42
>
> Obviously it's a contrived example, but then examples pointing out the
> consequences of language differences invariably are.
>
The analogy there is like complaining you can't use the back end of your
new spanner to hammer in nails, because it now has a box/ring at the end.
About the only non-pathological circumstances where a C90 program could
not be compiled as C99 and give the same result is if you happened to
use the word "restrict" as an identifier.
(And yes, I know there was a minor change in the types of certain
integer constants, and that it is conceivable that a particularly
unusual C90 compiler gave different unspecified rounding for negative
division than on a C99 compiler.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-30 16:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <101cimc$hqle$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393674 |
On 30/05/2025 15:02, David Brown wrote: > On 30/05/2025 12:54, Richard Heathfield wrote: <snip> >> Obviously it's a contrived example, but then examples pointing >> out the consequences of language differences invariably are. >> > > The analogy there is like complaining you can't use the back end > of your new spanner to hammer in nails, because it now has a > box/ring at the end. Your argument now appears to be that people wouldn't need C90 if only they'd written their C90 in such a way that C99 would have met their needs. This is undoubtedly the case. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-30 17:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <101cjl8$i2b3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393676 |
On 30/05/2025 17:26, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 30/05/2025 15:02, David Brown wrote: >> On 30/05/2025 12:54, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > <snip> > >>> Obviously it's a contrived example, but then examples pointing out >>> the consequences of language differences invariably are. >>> >> >> The analogy there is like complaining you can't use the back end of >> your new spanner to hammer in nails, because it now has a box/ring at >> the end. > > Your argument now appears to be that people wouldn't need C90 if only > they'd written their C90 in such a way that C99 would have met their needs. > I can't see how you get that from what I wrote. However, it /is/ the case that most people write / wrote their C90 in such a way that C99 meets their needs. The good folks who gave us C99 specifically made backwards compatibility a priority (though not an absolute). I'm not sure we are getting anywhere with this thread... > This is undoubtedly the case. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-30 17:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <101cmv4$ikgf$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393678 |
On 30/05/2025 16:42, David Brown wrote:
<snip>
> I can't see how you get that from what I wrote.
Perhaps I've been spending too long in comp.theory
> I'm not sure we are getting anywhere with this thread...
Agreed. I can no longer remember how this sub-thread started, but
I would guess that it was a wry aside that got bicycle-pumped out
of proportion.
void main(void)
{
char *s="Let's call the whole thing";
printf("%s %s", s, gets(s));
}
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-01 10:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86bjq3q1mw.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #393673 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 30/05/2025 10:20, David Brown wrote:
>
>> On 29/05/2025 14:38, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>>> This really is a very simple point, but perhaps a simple analogy
>>> will help to clarify it. You don't throw out your 3/4" just
>>> because you've bought a 19mm. There is room for both in the
>>> toolbox, and why write 3/4" on your new spanner? It /isn't/ a
>>> 3/4" spanner even though it's very like it, so why pretend
>>> otherwise?
>>
>> Your analogy does not cover C99 vs C90.
>
> It does if we can construct a program that is legal C90 but not
> legal C99, which is easy enough, or (slightly harder but still not
> that hard) a program that is legal in both dialects but which
> gives different output under C99 than it does for C90.
>
> $ cat c9099.c; \
> gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -o c90 c9099.c; \
> gcc -o c99 c9099.c; \
> ./c90; \
> ./c99
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int main(void)
> {
> int a = 42;
>
> int b = a //* comment */ 6;
> ;
> printf("Soln = %d\n", b);
>
> return 0;
> }
> Soln = 7
> Soln = 42
It's a straightfoward exercise to write a program that discovers
whether a given .c file has this potential ambiguity. Of course,
essentially no actual source code will, but the point is the
problem is easy to detect, and also correct.
This observation suggests a related question. Is there a source
of potential ambiguity between C90 and C99 that is not so easy to
detect and correct? I can think of one, but it falls into the
realm of depending on implementation-specific behavior, so could
just as easily be seen as a portability issue rather than a
language version issue.
> Obviously it's a contrived example, but then examples pointing out
> the consequences of language differences invariably are.
Some are. Some are not. In the case of C90 and C99, probably
all such cases are contrived, but certainly for other language
pairs there are cases that might arise unintentionally, even for
similar languages (notably C and C++).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-30 18:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20250530110328.160@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #393672 |
On 2025-05-30, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 29/05/2025 14:38, Richard Heathfield wrote: > >> This really is a very simple point, but perhaps a simple analogy will >> help to clarify it. You don't throw out your 3/4" just because you've >> bought a 19mm. There is room for both in the toolbox, and why write 3/4" >> on your new spanner? It /isn't/ a 3/4" spanner even though it's very >> like it, so why pretend otherwise? >> > > Your analogy does not cover C99 vs C90. > > You have a good 3/4" spanner. You don't throw it out just because you > also get an adjustable spanner - sometimes the 3/4" spanner is more > practical, or perhaps a bit stronger. That's keeping C when you also > have C++ available. You have a good 3/4" spanner. You also have an adjustable wrench. They are welded together and and the 3/4" spanner is written in the language of the adjustable one ... -- 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 | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-29 21:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <101aca9$me2$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393624 |
On 29/05/2025 10:39, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 29/05/2025 08:27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> On Fri, 23 May 2025 23:13:20 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> >>> And who cares about future instability if C90 remains just as stable as >>> ever it was? >> >> Even with the problems with const? >> >> char *strstr(const char *haystack, const char *needle); >> >> Dennis Ritchie pointed out the trouble with that. > > Is C90 perfect? No, of course not. "C is quirky, flawed, and an enormous > success." > > Is there value in having a powerful, widely-available language that, > when you turn your back for a moment, stays *exactly* where you left it? > Hell, yes. > That's one of the reasons I like C99 and C11, and look forward to C23. Once implemented, they don't change either. I agree with all your are arguments on this, except for one - I can't understand why you think C90 is different from later C standards in this regard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-29 23:24 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20250529232446.00005ae2@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #393648 |
On Thu, 29 May 2025 21:24:57 +0200 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 29/05/2025 10:39, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > On 29/05/2025 08:27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> On Fri, 23 May 2025 23:13:20 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote: > >> > >>> And who cares about future instability if C90 remains just as > >>> stable as ever it was? > >> > >> Even with the problems with const? > >> > >> char *strstr(const char *haystack, const char *needle); > >> > >> Dennis Ritchie pointed out the trouble with that. > > > > Is C90 perfect? No, of course not. "C is quirky, flawed, and an > > enormous success." > > > > Is there value in having a powerful, widely-available language > > that, when you turn your back for a moment, stays *exactly* where > > you left it? Hell, yes. > > > > That's one of the reasons I like C99 and C11, and look forward to > C23. Once implemented, they don't change either. > > I agree with all your are arguments on this, except for one - I can't > understand why you think C90 is different from later C standards in > this regard. > The Great Slow Kings Roger Zelazny Drax and Dran sat in the great Throne Hall of Glan, discussing life. Monarchs by virtue of superior intellect and physique--and the fact that they were the last two survivors of the race of Glan--theirs was a divided rule over the planet and their one subject, Zindrome, the palace robot. Drax had been musing for the past four centuries (theirs was a sluggish sort) over the possibility of life on other planets in the galaxy. Accordingly, "Dran," said he, addressing the other (who was becoming mildly curious as to his thoughts), "Dran, I've been thinking. There may be life on other planets in the galaxy." Dran considered his response to this, as the world wheeled several times about its sun. "True," he finally agreed, "there may." After several months Drax shot back, "If there is, we ought to find out." "Why?" asked Dran with equal promptness, which caused the other to suspect that he, too, had been thinking along these lines. So he measured his next statement out cautiously, first testing each word within the plated retort of his reptilian skull. "Our kingdom is rather underpopulated at present," he observed. "It would be good to have many subjects once more." Dran regarded him askance, then slowly turned his head. He closed one eye and half-closed the other, taking full stock of his co-ruler, whose appearance, as he had suspected, was unchanged since the last time he had looked. "That, also, is true," he noted. "What do you suggest we do?" This time Drax turned, reappraising him, eye to eye. I think we ought to find out if there is life on other planets in the galaxy." "Hmm." Two quick rounds of the seasons went unnoticed, then, "Let me think about it," he said, and turned away. After what he deemed a polite period of time, Drax coughed. "Have you thought sufficiently?" "No." Drax struggled to focus his eyes on the near-subliminal streak of bluish light which traversed, re-traversed and re-re-traversed the Hall as he waited. "Zindrome!" he finally called out. The robot slowed his movements to a statue-like immobility to accommodate his master. A feather duster protruded from his right limb. "You called, great Lord of Glan?" "Yes, Zindrome, worthy subject. Those old spaceships which we constructed in happier days, and never got around to using. Are any of them still capable of operation?" "I'll check, great Lord." He seemed to change position slightly. "There are three hundred eighty-two," he announced, "of which four are in functioning condition, great Lord. I've checked all the operating circuits." "Drax," warned Dran, "you are arrogating unauthorized powers to yourself once more. You should have conferred with me before issuing that order." "I apologize," stated the other. "I simply wanted to expedite matters, should your decision be that we conduct a survey." "You have anticipated my decision correctly," nodded Dran, "but your eagerness seems to bespeak a hidden purpose." "No purpose but the good of the realm," smiled the other. "That may be, but the last time you spoke of 'the good of the realm' the civil strife which ensued cost us our other robot." "I have learned my lesson and profited thereby. I shall be more judicious in the future." "I hope so. Now, about this investigation--which part of the galaxy do you intend to investigate first?" A tension-filled pause ensued. "I had assumed," murmured Drax, "that you would conduct the expedition. Being the more mature monarch, yours should be a more adequate decision as to whether or not a particular species is worthy of our enlightened rule." "Yes, but your youth tends to make you more active than I. The journey should be more expeditiously conducted by you." He emphasized the word "expeditiously." "We could both go, in separate ships," offered Drax. "That would be truly expeditious--" Their heated debating was cut short by a metallic cough-equivalent. "Masters," suggested Zindrome, "the half-life of radioactive materials being as ephemeral as it is, I regret to report that only one spaceship is now in operational condition." "That settles it, Dran. _You_ go. It will require a steadier _rrand_ to manage an underpowered ship." "And leave you to foment civil strife and usurp unfranchised powers? No, you go!" "I suppose we could _both_ go," sighed Drax. "Fine! Leave the kingdom leaderless! _That_ is the kind of muddleheaded thinking which brought about our present political embarrassment." "Masters," said Zindrome, "if _someone_ doesn't go soon the ship will be useless." They both studied their servant, approving the rapid chain of logic forged by his simple statement. "Very well," they smiled in unison, "_you_ go." Zindrome bowed quite obsequiously and departed from the great Throne Hall of Glan. "Perhaps we should authorize Zindrome to construct facsimiles of himself," stated Dran, tentatively. "If we had more subjects we could accomplish more." "Are you forgetting our most recent agreement?" asked Drax. "A superfluity of robots tended to stimulate factionalism last time--and certain people grew ambitious..." He let his voice trail off over the years, for emphasis. "I am not certain as to whether your last allusion contains a hidden accusation," began the other carefully. "If so, permit me to caution you concerning rashness--and to remind you who it was who engineered the Mono-Robot Protection Pact." "Do you believe things will be different in the case of a multitude of organic subjects?" inquired the other. "Definitely," said Dran. "There is a certain irrational element in the rationale of the organic being, making it less amenable to direct orders than a machine would be. Our robots, at least, were faithful when we ordered them to destroy each other. Irresponsible organic subjects either do it without being told, which is boorish, or refuse to do it when you order them, which is insubordination." "True," smiled Drax, unearthing a gem he had preserved for millennia against this occasion. "Concerning organic life the only statement which can be made with certainty is that life is uncertain." "Hmm." Dran narrowed his eyes to slits. "Let me ponder that for a moment. Like much of your thinking it seems to smack of a concealed sophistry." "It contains none, I assure you. It is the fruit of much meditation." "Hmm." Dran's pondering was cut short, by the arrival of Zindrome who clutched two brownish blurs beneath his metal arms. "Back already, Zindrome? What have you there? Slow the down so we can see them." "They are under sedation at present, great Masters. It is the movements caused by their breathing which produce the unpleasant vibration pattern on your retinas. To subject them to more narcosis could prove deleterious." "Nevertheless," maintained Dran, "we must appraise our new subjects carefully, which requires that we see them. Slow them down some more." "You gave that order without-" began Drax, but was distracted by the sudden appearance of the two hairy bipeds. "Warm-blooded?" he asked. "Yes, Lord." "That bespeaks a very brief life-span." "True," offered Dran, "but that kind tends to reproduce quite rapidly." "That observation tends to be correct," nodded Drax. "Tell me, Zindrome, do they represent the sexes necessary for reproduction?" "Yes, Master. There are two sexes among these anthropoids, so I brought one of each." "That was very wise. Where did you find them?" "Several billion light years from here." "Turn those two loose outside and go fetch us some more." The creatures vanished. Zindrome appeared not to have moved. "Have you the fuel necessary for another such journey?" "Yes, my Lord. More of it has evolved recently." "Excellent." The robot departed. "What sort of governmental setup should be inaugurate this time?" asked Drax. "Set us review the arguments for the various types." "A good idea." In the midst of their discussion Zindrome returned and stood waiting to be recognized. "What is it, Zindrome? Did you forget something?" "No, great Lords. When I returned to the world from which I obtained the samples I discovered that the race had progressed to the point where it developed fission processes, engaged in an atomic war and annihilated itself." "That was extremely inconsiderate--typical, however, I should say, of warm-blooded instability." Zindrome continued to shift. "Have you something else to report?" "Yes, great Masters. The two specimens I released have multiplied and are now spread over the entire planet of Glan." "We should have been advised!" "Yes, great Lords, but I was absent and--" "They themselves should have reported this action!" "Masters, I am afraid they are unaware of your existence." "How could that have happened?" asked Dran. "We are presently buried beneath several thousand layers of alluvial rock. The geological shifts--" "You have your orders to maintain the place and clean the grounds," glowered Dran. "Have you been frittering away your time again?" "No, great Lords! It all occurred during my absence. I shall attend to it immediately." "First," ordered Drax, "tell us what else our subjects have been up to, that they saw fit to conceal from us." "Recently," observed the robot, "they have discovered how to forge and temper metals. Upon landing, I observed that they had developed many ingenious instruments of a cutting variety. Unfortunately they were using them to cut one another." "Do you mean," roared Dran, "that there is strife in the kingdom?" "Uh, yes, my Lord." "I will not brook unauthorized violence among my subjects!" "_Our_ subjects," added Drax, with a meaningful glare. "_Our_ subjects," amended Dran. "We must take immediate action." "Agreed." "Agreed." "I shall issue orders forbidding their engagement in activities leading to bloodshed." "I presume that you mean a joint proclamation," stated Drax. "Of course. I was not slighting you, I was simply shaken by the civil emergency. We shall draft an official proclamation. Let Zindrome fetch us writing instruments." "Zindrome, fetch--" "I have them here, my Lords." "Now, let me see. How shall we phrase it...?" "Perhaps I should clean the palace while your Excellencies--" "No! Wait right here! This will be very brief and to the point." "Mm. 'We hereby proclaim...'" "Don't forget our titles." "True. 'We, the imperial monarchs of Glan, herebeneath undersigned, do hereby...'" A feeble pulse of gamma rays passed unnoticed by the two rulers. The faithful Zindrome diagnosed its nature, however, and tried unsuccessfully to obtain the monarchs' attention. Finally, he dismissed the project with a stoical gesture typical of his kind. He waited. There!" they agreed flourishing the document. "Now you can tell us what you have been trying to say, Zindrome. But make it brief, you just deliver this soon." "It is already too late, great Lords. This race, also, progressed into civilized states, developed nuclear energy and eradicated itself while you were writing." "Barbarous!" "Warm-blooded irresponsibility!" "May I go clean up now, great Masters?" "Soon, Zindrome, soon. First, though, I move that we file the proclamation in the Archives for future use, in the event of similar occurrences." Dran nodded. "I agree. _We_ so order." The robot accepted the crumbling proclamation and vanished from sight. "You know," Drax mused, "there must be lots of radioactive material lying about now..." "There probably is." "It could be used to fuel a ship for another expedition." "Perhaps." "This time we could instruct Zindrome to bring back something with a longer lifespan and more deliberate habits--somewhat nearer our own." "That would have its dangers. But perhaps we could junk the Mono-Robot Protection Pact and order Zindrome to manufacture extras of himself. Under strict supervision." "That would have its dangers too." "At any rate, I should have to ponder your suggestion carefully." "And I yours." "It's been a busy day," nodded Dran. "Let's sleep on it." "A good idea." Sounds of saurian snoring emerged from the great Throne Hall of Glan.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-29 21:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <101afvt$1sm1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393648 |
On 29/05/2025 20:24, David Brown wrote: > On 29/05/2025 10:39, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 29/05/2025 08:27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Fri, 23 May 2025 23:13:20 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> >>>> And who cares about future instability if C90 remains just as >>>> stable as >>>> ever it was? >>> >>> Even with the problems with const? >>> >>> char *strstr(const char *haystack, const char *needle); >>> >>> Dennis Ritchie pointed out the trouble with that. >> >> Is C90 perfect? No, of course not. "C is quirky, flawed, and an >> enormous success." >> >> Is there value in having a powerful, widely-available language >> that, when you turn your back for a moment, stays *exactly* >> where you left it? Hell, yes. >> > > That's one of the reasons I like C99 and C11, and look forward to > C23. Once implemented, they don't change either. > > I agree with all your are arguments on this, So far so good. :-) > except for one - I > can't understand why you think C90 is different from later C > standards in this regard. I realise that my reply is going to sound glib, but I can't help that. I *don't* think C90 is different. I think C90 is exactly the same. It's the later standards that are different. Different from C90. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-29 13:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <871ps7f8o3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #393650 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 29/05/2025 20:24, David Brown wrote:
[...]
>> That's one of the reasons I like C99 and C11, and look forward to
>> C23. Once implemented, they don't change either.
>> I agree with all your are arguments on this,
>
> So far so good. :-)
>
>> except for one - I can't understand why you think C90 is different
>> from later C standards in this regard.
>
> I realise that my reply is going to sound glib, but I can't help that.
>
> I *don't* think C90 is different. I think C90 is exactly the
> same. It's the later standards that are different. Different from C90.
I'd like to understand the point you're trying to make.
Being different is a transitive relationship. C90 is different
"from later C standards". You say that C90 is "exactly the same"
-- as what? As itself? C99 is also exactly the same as itself.
If the difference is that you personally like C90 and dislike C99
and later editions, that's fine. De gustibus non est disputandem
(never argue with a guy named Gus).
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-29 22:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <101aif2$1sm2$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393651 |
On 29/05/2025 21:45, Keith Thompson wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> On 29/05/2025 20:24, David Brown wrote: > [...] >>> That's one of the reasons I like C99 and C11, and look forward to >>> C23. Once implemented, they don't change either. >>> I agree with all your are arguments on this, >> >> So far so good. :-) >> >>> except for one - I can't understand why you think C90 is different >>> from later C standards in this regard. >> >> I realise that my reply is going to sound glib, but I can't help that. >> >> I *don't* think C90 is different. I think C90 is exactly the >> same. It's the later standards that are different. Different from C90. > > I'd like to understand the point you're trying to make. I'll do what I can to help out; I'm really not trying to be obscure. > Being different is a transitive relationship. C90 is different > "from later C standards". You say that C90 is "exactly the same" > -- as what? As itself? Yes. And nothing else has that quality of being C90. > C99 is also exactly the same as itself. Yes, but it's different from C99. > If the difference is that you personally like C90 and dislike C99 > and later editions, that's fine. De gustibus non est disputandem > (never argue with a guy named Gus). Look, Gus, if that's what you want to call yourself...well, okay, I can't in all honesty deny that de gustibus is part of it, but it's more to do with bit rot. Software houses need C90 for the same reason the government needs IBM 1311s (unless they've finished migrating off them now), cassette players, WW2 crypto keys, and the boot passwords for those early 1990s PCs lurking in the cellar. I shudder to think how much C90 code is out there, but it has to be /at least/ in the region of 10^9 LOC, much of it in the military arena, medical applications, and particularly the world of comms. Letting C90 compilers fall off the radar (e.g. by society forgetting how to program in it) really could be a stupendously bad idea, for all the reasons that people overlook when they shrug and say `I expect it'll all turn out fine'. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-29 21:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Qb4_P.377135$vvyf.313049@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #393653 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >On 29/05/2025 21:45, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >>> On 29/05/2025 20:24, David Brown wrote: >> [...] >>>> That's one of the reasons I like C99 and C11, and look forward to >>>> C23. Once implemented, they don't change either. >>>> I agree with all your are arguments on this, >>> >>> So far so good. :-) >>> >>>> except for one - I can't understand why you think C90 is different >>>> from later C standards in this regard. >>> >>> I realise that my reply is going to sound glib, but I can't help that. >>> >>> I *don't* think C90 is different. I think C90 is exactly the >>> same. It's the later standards that are different. Different from C90. >> >> I'd like to understand the point you're trying to make. > >I'll do what I can to help out; I'm really not trying to be obscure. > >> Being different is a transitive relationship. C90 is different >> "from later C standards". You say that C90 is "exactly the same" >> -- as what? As itself? > >Yes. And nothing else has that quality of being C90. > >> C99 is also exactly the same as itself. > >Yes, but it's different from C99. > >> If the difference is that you personally like C90 and dislike C99 >> and later editions, that's fine. De gustibus non est disputandem >> (never argue with a guy named Gus). > >Look, Gus, if that's what you want to call yourself...well, okay, >I can't in all honesty deny that de gustibus is part of it, but >it's more to do with bit rot. > >Software houses need C90 for the same reason the government needs >IBM 1311s (unless they've finished migrating off them now), >cassette players, WW2 crypto keys, and the boot passwords for >those early 1990s PCs lurking in the cellar. > >I shudder to think how much C90 code is out there, but it has to >be /at least/ in the region of 10^9 LOC, much of it in the >military arena, medical applications, and particularly the world >of comms. Letting C90 compilers fall off the radar (e.g. by >society forgetting how to program in it) really could be a >stupendously bad idea, for all the reasons that people overlook >when they shrug and say `I expect it'll all turn out fine'. And all the existing C compilers in the entire planet support the C90 dialect[*], if so instructed. Where is the problem? [*] Well, except perhap Bart's and various hobby compilers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web