Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #391822 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-04-02 16:59 +1100 |
| Last post | 2025-04-11 13:51 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 458 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
"A diagram of C23 basic types" Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> - 2025-04-02 16:59 +1100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-02 06:02 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 01:20 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-03 20:35 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 04:27 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-02 09:02 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-02 07:32 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-03 05:43 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 09:38 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-03 10:15 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 04:17 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 03:28 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-02 11:33 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-02 20:53 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-02 10:57 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-02 10:14 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-02 15:35 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-02 14:05 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-02 11:12 -0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-02 15:12 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-02 16:33 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-04-02 15:51 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-02 16:20 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-02 23:31 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-02 23:32 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-03 03:02 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 13:42 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-03 19:32 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 09:49 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 13:21 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-03 01:10 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-03 05:09 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-02 23:12 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 01:28 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-03 19:37 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-03 21:48 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-04 02:57 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 12:49 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 15:01 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 12:26 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 20:11 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-10 09:53 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-10 11:37 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-12 05:43 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-12 10:10 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-12 17:21 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 14:27 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-10 10:07 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 12:08 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-10 12:48 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-12 05:44 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 12:42 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-10 15:06 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 15:29 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-10 16:55 +0200
C implementation headers [was Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"] scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-10 15:17 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 13:47 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 14:56 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-12 05:42 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 13:46 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-09 13:14 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 15:01 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-14 02:10 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 04:08 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-02 09:34 -0800
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-02-02 16:15 -0800
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-10 11:42 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-14 01:59 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-14 12:44 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-05 16:25 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-06 11:26 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-08 06:08 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-09 20:38 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-04 03:05 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 21:06 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-04 12:39 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-08 02:36 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 14:30 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-03 23:32 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-04 14:07 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-04 02:55 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 08:55 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 13:43 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 11:45 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 09:57 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-04 02:54 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 08:46 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 14:14 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-04 09:42 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-04 13:42 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-04 14:10 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-04 14:27 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-04 03:01 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 21:05 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-07 17:30 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-07 21:49 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-08 18:40 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-14 04:33 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-14 17:40 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-14 17:46 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-15 09:41 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 13:36 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 15:15 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-14 22:33 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 15:56 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-14 23:41 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 17:57 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-14 23:25 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 04:11 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-15 10:06 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 15:56 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 17:04 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-15 20:53 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-17 17:56 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-19 09:46 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-19 17:15 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-19 23:15 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-21 20:34 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 14:28 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-22 01:07 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-22 19:30 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-05 16:40 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-22 00:28 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 22:58 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-15 21:02 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-16 07:42 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 00:00 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-15 14:08 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 12:29 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-15 18:57 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 23:01 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 17:10 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-16 02:11 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 23:00 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 18:46 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 04:14 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-15 10:19 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-15 14:28 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 12:17 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 16:20 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-17 03:03 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 22:34 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 22:38 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 23:10 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" dave_thompson_2@comcast.net - 2025-07-29 10:49 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-07-29 21:18 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 19:43 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 04:15 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 00:40 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-15 19:22 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 12:54 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-15 19:10 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 19:54 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-18 20:03 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 22:56 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 23:48 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-16 07:41 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-18 20:10 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-15 14:10 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 13:00 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 16:42 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-16 14:00 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 12:48 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-16 20:04 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 16:10 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-16 23:13 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 16:31 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-17 01:05 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-17 01:26 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-17 23:18 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-28 07:52 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-30 23:57 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-01 06:17 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 16:11 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-17 23:16 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-29 02:10 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-28 19:20 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-29 08:37 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-29 13:14 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-28 23:34 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-29 08:44 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-30 23:58 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-30 17:15 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-29 05:10 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-29 01:24 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-29 13:02 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-29 19:25 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-29 19:00 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-08 02:27 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-07 19:02 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-07 21:12 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-07 19:18 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" G <g@nowhere.invalid> - 2025-04-07 18:41 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-07 22:14 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-07 23:49 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-07 23:18 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-07 22:37 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-07 22:46 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-07 23:57 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-07 16:01 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-08 11:45 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 11:37 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 10:25 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-18 02:39 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 12:49 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-19 00:16 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-07 20:29 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-07 22:30 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-07 22:26 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 10:29 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-08 10:54 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-08 14:20 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-08 14:25 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-08 21:29 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 13:39 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-08 13:00 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 16:55 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-08 19:25 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-08 14:32 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-08 20:53 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-08 22:30 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-09 09:01 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 12:23 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-09 10:08 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 13:32 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-09 11:00 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-09 13:04 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 15:24 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-09 12:35 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-09 11:02 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 14:33 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 15:09 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-01 00:01 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 15:16 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 16:56 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 18:19 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-04-09 18:32 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 15:09 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-09 13:17 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-08 14:34 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-09 09:00 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-08 02:29 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-02 16:18 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-04 02:53 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-02 17:28 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-02 15:17 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-02 16:59 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-02 15:26 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-02 16:38 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-04-02 15:53 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-02 19:29 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-02 19:26 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-02 18:48 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-02 17:41 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 10:16 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 03:27 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 15:23 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 13:48 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-02 21:00 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 13:51 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 11:47 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 18:54 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 12:37 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-04 03:27 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-04 03:14 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-02 18:51 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-02 21:06 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 05:11 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-03 09:23 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-03 23:19 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-14 05:46 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-03 22:00 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-06 19:33 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-07 04:09 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-30 08:12 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-07 18:31 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-07 18:55 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-07 14:19 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-30 09:45 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-30 17:41 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-08 05:59 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-08 13:42 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-08 08:33 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-07 14:35 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 10:39 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-08 14:14 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 15:29 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-30 08:37 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 10:23 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 10:04 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-02 23:24 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 10:59 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-03 13:49 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 15:40 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 11:11 -0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 16:49 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-03 16:44 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 16:58 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-03 23:39 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 12:52 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-07 06:46 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-03 15:59 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 15:26 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-03 16:52 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 13:31 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 11:31 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 20:51 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 12:29 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-14 01:46 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 11:19 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 20:54 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-02 16:16 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 08:45 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 11:41 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 11:07 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 15:58 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-04 09:40 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 13:39 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-04 14:10 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 17:12 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-04-04 16:11 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:52 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-04 04:43 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 15:34 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-03 14:45 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 16:03 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-02 19:23 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-02 18:04 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 08:49 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 15:16 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 13:22 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-02 23:43 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 11:03 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-04 04:50 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 15:38 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-04 15:14 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 17:26 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-02 18:02 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-03 00:35 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-03 06:21 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 13:53 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-02 14:12 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-02 15:16 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-02 13:09 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 08:51 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Opus <ifonly@youknew.org> - 2025-04-03 15:05 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 13:19 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-03 16:27 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Opus <ifonly@youknew.org> - 2025-04-03 21:13 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-06 03:31 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 11:15 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 16:01 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-04 09:43 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 03:25 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-04 10:28 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 03:31 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 15:46 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-04 14:02 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 17:28 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-04-04 16:12 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 19:25 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:18 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-05 17:34 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-05 17:10 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-04 18:49 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-04 21:08 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 19:15 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-05 17:36 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-08 02:39 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-07 23:26 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2025-04-05 19:56 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 14:32 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 16:57 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 16:47 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-08 16:08 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-08 11:05 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 11:20 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 11:32 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2025-04-09 08:53 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 14:46 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 23:34 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 17:33 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-08 22:47 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-08 21:36 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 23:12 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 10:55 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-09 13:52 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-10 11:50 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-11 12:27 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-14 01:24 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-14 12:55 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-06 06:56 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-06 13:25 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-08 08:37 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-08 15:48 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-08 16:32 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-08 22:53 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-05-08 14:09 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-08 16:52 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-08 08:49 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 11:21 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 15:03 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-09 21:32 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 22:58 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 15:36 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-03 15:02 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 13:06 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-27 12:05 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-28 16:27 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-29 13:38 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-06 15:06 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-26 09:01 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-06-26 13:27 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-27 00:39 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-06-27 02:40 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-26 19:33 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-06-28 14:16 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-15 19:41 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-07-16 03:55 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-20 00:16 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-07-20 07:58 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-07-20 11:28 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-06-29 04:44 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-29 17:13 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-06-26 12:51 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-26 13:23 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-26 23:58 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-06-27 03:51 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-06-27 13:44 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-27 14:01 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-06-26 15:57 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-06-26 16:10 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-26 12:31 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-26 23:59 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-26 21:09 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-26 17:10 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-06-27 04:33 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-27 17:56 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-06-29 05:03 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-06-28 23:18 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-28 20:37 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-06-29 20:48 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-06-30 21:59 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-28 20:51 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-06-29 20:40 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" - correction Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-06-29 20:52 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" - correction "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-29 12:14 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-27 14:02 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-27 14:52 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-06-27 20:48 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-28 23:59 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-06-29 09:23 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-29 00:56 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-07-29 21:13 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-11 09:34 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 12:48 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-11 09:48 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 13:51 -0700
Page 6 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 23 Next page →
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-15 09:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vtl2js$37onb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392510 |
On 14.04.2025 19:46, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-04-14, candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote: >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 04:33 this Monday (GMT): >>> I worked out that an integer of a little over 200 bits is sufficient to >>> represent the age of the known Universe in units of the Planck interval >>> (5.39e-44 seconds). Therefore, rounding to something more even, 256 bits >>> should be more than enough to measure any physically conceivable time down >>> to that resolution. >> >> The problem then becomes storing that size. > > In a twist of verbal irony, his time here is measured by *Plonck* Intervals. LOL! - YMMD. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-14 13:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vtjknt$1sp26$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392509 |
On 4/14/2025 12:40 PM, candycanearter07 wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 04:33 this Monday (GMT): >> On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 21:49:02 +0200, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >> >>> A better unit is, IMO, a second resolution (which at least is a basic >>> physical unit) and a separate integer for sub-seconds. >> >> I worked out that an integer of a little over 200 bits is sufficient to >> represent the age of the known Universe in units of the Planck interval >> (5.39e-44 seconds). Therefore, rounding to something more even, 256 bits >> should be more than enough to measure any physically conceivable time down >> to that resolution. > > > The problem then becomes storing that size. More practical is storing the time in microseconds. A 64-bit integer holding the time in microseconds covers pretty much the entirety of human history thus far. It is accurate enough to express the time for most conventional timing tasks. Granted, needing to divide by 1000000 to get the time in seconds is a mild annoyance. For some use cases, could do an approximation, say: time_sc=time+(time>>5)+(time>>6)+(time>>10)+(time>>11); time_sec=time_sc>>20; Say, pre-scaling the time to be approximately a power-of-2 fraction and then shifting right, which could be faster (and close enough) on targets where 64 bit multiply and divide are painfully slow. ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-14 15:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87plhe2xv9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #392511 |
BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> More practical is storing the time in microseconds.
>
> A 64-bit integer holding the time in microseconds covers pretty much
> the entirety of human history thus far.
It covers a range of about 600,000 years.
But C already has "struct timespec", a struct containing a time_t
and a count of nanoseconds.
The fact that there are two different types for representing times
(ignoring struct tm) is mildly inconvenient, but struct timespec
(added in C11) gives better range and precision than a single
integer value could in 64 or fewer bits.
--
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 | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-14 22:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vtk2f9$295ku$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392511 |
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 13:36:07 -0500, BGB wrote: > On 4/14/2025 12:40 PM, candycanearter07 wrote: > >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 04:33 this Monday (GMT): >> >>> I worked out that an integer of a little over 200 bits is sufficient >>> to represent the age of the known Universe in units of the Planck >>> interval (5.39e-44 seconds). Therefore, rounding to something more >>> even, 256 bits should be more than enough to measure any physically >>> conceivable time down to that resolution. >> >> The problem then becomes storing that size. > > More practical is storing the time in microseconds. Relative to what epoch? I figured that it would be hard to find an epoch less arbitrary than the Big Bang ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-14 15:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87cyde2vyf.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #392515 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 13:36:07 -0500, BGB wrote:
>> On 4/14/2025 12:40 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 04:33 this Monday (GMT):
>>>> I worked out that an integer of a little over 200 bits is sufficient
>>>> to represent the age of the known Universe in units of the Planck
>>>> interval (5.39e-44 seconds). Therefore, rounding to something more
>>>> even, 256 bits should be more than enough to measure any physically
>>>> conceivable time down to that resolution.
>>>
>>> The problem then becomes storing that size.
>>
>> More practical is storing the time in microseconds.
>
> Relative to what epoch?
>
> I figured that it would be hard to find an epoch less arbitrary than the
> Big Bang ...
Why??
That would not be practical or useful. The timing of the Big Bang
is not known with great precision; the epoch would be "what we
guessed the time of the Big Bang to be when we standardized this".
You'd need about 59 bits to store the number of seconds since the
Big Bang. Storing microseconds or nanoseconds would require more
than 64 bits.
Huge numbers of systems already use the perfectly reasonable POSIX
epoch, 1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC. I can think of no good reason to
standardize anything else.
--
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 | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-14 23:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vtk6es$2cj23$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392516 |
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 15:56:56 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: >> >> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 13:36:07 -0500, BGB wrote: >>> >>> On 4/14/2025 12:40 PM, candycanearter07 wrote: >>>> >>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 04:33 this Monday >>>> (GMT): >>>>> I worked out that an integer of a little over 200 bits is sufficient >>>>> to represent the age of the known Universe in units of the Planck >>>>> interval (5.39e-44 seconds). Therefore, rounding to something more >>>>> even, 256 bits should be more than enough to measure any physically >>>>> conceivable time down to that resolution. >>>> >>>> The problem then becomes storing that size. >>> >>> More practical is storing the time in microseconds. >> >> Relative to what epoch? >> >> I figured that it would be hard to find an epoch less arbitrary than >> the Big Bang ... > > Why?? > > That would not be practical or useful. The timing of the Big Bang is > not known with great precision ... Neither is that of some fictional religious entity. So we pick some value close to where we think it is. And then discover in the future that it was some few million years before or after that point. No biggie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-14 17:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <874iyq2qcv.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #392518 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 15:56:56 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 13:36:07 -0500, BGB wrote:
>>>> On 4/14/2025 12:40 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 04:33 this Monday
>>>>> (GMT):
>>>>>> I worked out that an integer of a little over 200 bits is sufficient
>>>>>> to represent the age of the known Universe in units of the Planck
>>>>>> interval (5.39e-44 seconds). Therefore, rounding to something more
>>>>>> even, 256 bits should be more than enough to measure any physically
>>>>>> conceivable time down to that resolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem then becomes storing that size.
>>>>
>>>> More practical is storing the time in microseconds.
>>>
>>> Relative to what epoch?
>>>
>>> I figured that it would be hard to find an epoch less arbitrary than
>>> the Big Bang ...
>>
>> Why??
>>
>> That would not be practical or useful. The timing of the Big Bang is
>> not known with great precision ...
>
> Neither is that of some fictional religious entity.
>
> So we pick some value close to where we think it is. And then discover in
> the future that it was some few million years before or after that point.
> No biggie.
You have again snipped relevant context from my previous post. Worse,
you have not indicated that you snipped it. (A common convention is to
insert a line like "[...]" or "[snip]" in place of the snipped text.)
Stop doing that.
Your suggestion is silly, it is impractical for reasons you refuse to
acknowledge, and I won't waste any more time discussing it with you.
--
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 | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-14 23:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vtkjj6$2qmnt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392518 |
On 4/14/25 19:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 15:56:56 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote: ... >> That would not be practical or useful. The timing of the Big Bang is >> not known with great precision ... > > Neither is that of some fictional religious entity. Not true. While his divinity is fictional, there might have been a person who was the inspiration for those stories. Whether or not he was real, the stories of his life are only consistent with a very specific time period, which narrows the time period of his (possibly fictional) birth to within just a few years. The uncertainty in the timing of the Big Bang is currently about 59 million years. On 1977-01-01, international time keepers started correcting for the fact that different atomic clocks measured time at different speed because they were at different altitudes. As a result, that date is epoch used in Barycentric Coordinate Time (TCB), Geocentric Coordinate Time (TCG), and Terrestrial Time (TT). I would therefore favor that epoch over any other that I can think of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-15 04:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vtkm8o$2u0tr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392523 |
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 23:25:26 -0400, James Kuyper wrote: > On 4/14/25 19:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 15:56:56 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote: > ... >>> That would not be practical or useful. The timing of the Big Bang is >>> not known with great precision ... >> >> Neither is that of some fictional religious entity. > > Not true. While his divinity is fictional, there might have been a > person who was the inspiration for those stories. Whether or not he was > real, the stories of his life are only consistent with a very specific > time period ... Unfortunately, whoever threw in references to historical details to try to make the stories seem more plausible didn’t try very hard to keep them consistent. Remember that there was no “Year 1”. It was a few centuries before somebody decided something like “let’s call this year 615 A.D., and number backwards and forwards from there”.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-15 10:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vtlp5v$3nrio$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392524 |
On 4/15/25 00:11, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 23:25:26 -0400, James Kuyper wrote: > >> On 4/14/25 19:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 15:56:56 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote: >> ... >>>> That would not be practical or useful. The timing of the Big Bang is >>>> not known with great precision ... >>> >>> Neither is that of some fictional religious entity. >> >> Not true. While his divinity is fictional, there might have been a >> person who was the inspiration for those stories. Whether or not he was >> real, the stories of his life are only consistent with a very specific >> time period ... > > Unfortunately, whoever threw in references to historical details to try to > make the stories seem more plausible didn’t try very hard to keep them > consistent. That's why there's a range of possible dates, rather than one specific date. Note that such inconsistencies can be expected, even if he's real. Most historical figures of his era who were not of high rank had poorly recorded births. > Remember that there was no “Year 1”. It was a few centuries before > somebody decided something like “let’s call this year 615 A.D., and number > backwards and forwards from there”. No, Dionysius Exiguus didn't just randomly decide which year it was, he did his best to determine how many years it had been since the birth of Christ. The method he used to reach that conclusion are unknown, and are inconsistent with the range of dates currently considered reasonable by experts. If Jesus was a real person, the current best guess as to the date of his birth is somewhere between 6 and 4 BCE. See <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_of_the_birth_of_Jesus> for more detail. The point is, the uncertainty in the date of his birth, whether fictional or real, is far less than the 59 million year uncertainty in the date of the Big Bang. In order for it to be comparably uncertain, we would have to be unsure whether he was incarnated in the Mesozoic or Cenozoic eras. Are you uncertain as to whether or not King Herod ruled during the Cretaceous?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-15 15:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87tt6p11bw.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #392545 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
[...]
> The point is, the uncertainty in the date of his birth, whether
> fictional or real, is far less than the 59 million year uncertainty in
> the date of the Big Bang. In order for it to be comparably uncertain, we
> would have to be unsure whether he was incarnated in the Mesozoic or
> Cenozoic eras.
[...]
None of that is relevant.
The uncertainty in the timing of the Big Bang and the birth of Christ
are relevant to cosmologists, historians, and religious scholars, not
to programmers who don't happen to be working in any of those fields.
The uncertainty in the timing of January 1, 1970, where 1970 is a
year number in the current almost universally accepted Gregorian
calendar, is essentially zero. Same for any other less commonly
used chosen epoch. The fact that the number 1970 is arbitrary
is not a problem for software. In fact it's an advantage, since
there's no uncertainty in the presence of any new information.
--
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 | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-15 17:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vtms6u$rm65$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392573 |
On 4/15/2025 3:56 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: > [...] >> The point is, the uncertainty in the date of his birth, whether >> fictional or real, is far less than the 59 million year uncertainty in >> the date of the Big Bang. In order for it to be comparably uncertain, we >> would have to be unsure whether he was incarnated in the Mesozoic or >> Cenozoic eras. > [...] > > None of that is relevant. > > The uncertainty in the timing of the Big Bang and the birth of Christ > are relevant to cosmologists, historians, and religious scholars, not > to programmers who don't happen to be working in any of those fields. The strange part is that some people think that Jesus just might be a hyper interesting experiment, whatever... Perhaps Mary got abducted by something from another world, dimension, ect... Shit happens. Or some shit like that crap. I just don't know. Perhaps his divine powers were real, as part of said experiment? > > The uncertainty in the timing of January 1, 1970, where 1970 is a > year number in the current almost universally accepted Gregorian > calendar, is essentially zero. Same for any other less commonly > used chosen epoch. The fact that the number 1970 is arbitrary > is not a problem for software. In fact it's an advantage, since > there's no uncertainty in the presence of any new information. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-15 20:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vtmv30$tfkg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392573 |
On 4/15/25 18:56, Keith Thompson wrote: ... > The uncertainty in the timing of January 1, 1970, where 1970 is a > year number in the current almost universally accepted Gregorian > calendar, is essentially zero. Modern Cesium clock are accurate to about 1 ns/day.That's an effect large enough that we can measure it, but cannot correct for it. We know that the clocks disagree with each other, but the closest we can do to correcting for that instability is to average over 450 different clock; the average is 10 times more stable than the individual clocks. Note: the precision of cesium clocks has improved log-linearly since the 1950s. They're 6 orders of magnitude better in 2008 than they were in 1950. Who knows how much longer that will continue to be true? > ... Same for any other less commonly > used chosen epoch. The fact that the number 1970 is arbitrary > is not a problem for software. In fact it's an advantage, since > there's no uncertainty in the presence of any new information. I agree, which is why I identified that epoch as the one I preferred over both of those.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-17 17:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vtr8bd$vfa6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392584 |
On 16/04/2025 02:53, James Kuyper wrote: > On 4/15/25 18:56, Keith Thompson wrote: > ... >> The uncertainty in the timing of January 1, 1970, where 1970 is a >> year number in the current almost universally accepted Gregorian >> calendar, is essentially zero. > > Modern Cesium clock are accurate to about 1 ns/day.That's an effect > large enough that we can measure it, but cannot correct for it. We know > that the clocks disagree with each other, but the closest we can do to > correcting for that instability is to average over 450 different clock; > the average is 10 times more stable than the individual clocks. > > Note: the precision of cesium clocks has improved log-linearly since the > 1950s. They're 6 orders of magnitude better in 2008 than they were in > 1950. Who knows how much longer that will continue to be true? > I don't think cesium is still the current standard for the highest precision atomic clocks. But anyway, the newest breakthrough is thorium nuclear clocks, which IIRC are 5 orders of magnitude more stable than cesium clocks. (And probably 5 orders of magnitude more expensive...) >> ... Same for any other less commonly >> used chosen epoch. The fact that the number 1970 is arbitrary >> is not a problem for software. In fact it's an advantage, since >> there's no uncertainty in the presence of any new information. > > I agree, which is why I identified that epoch as the one I preferred > over both of those.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-19 09:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vtvkdk$vh8f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392655 |
On 17.04.2025 17:56, David Brown wrote: > On 16/04/2025 02:53, James Kuyper wrote: >> On 4/15/25 18:56, Keith Thompson wrote: >> ... >>> The uncertainty in the timing of January 1, 1970, where 1970 is a >>> year number in the current almost universally accepted Gregorian >>> calendar, is essentially zero. >> >> Modern Cesium clock are accurate to about 1 ns/day.That's an effect >> large enough that we can measure it, but cannot correct for it. We know >> that the clocks disagree with each other, but the closest we can do to >> correcting for that instability is to average over 450 different clock; >> the average is 10 times more stable than the individual clocks. >> >> Note: the precision of cesium clocks has improved log-linearly since the >> 1950s. They're 6 orders of magnitude better in 2008 than they were in >> 1950. Who knows how much longer that will continue to be true? >> > > I don't think cesium is still the current standard for the highest > precision atomic clocks. Well, the "Cesium _fountain_" atomic clocks are still amongst the most precise and they are in use in the world wide net of atomic clocks that are interconnected to measure TAI.[*] And the standard second is _defined_ on Caesium based transitions. > But anyway, the newest breakthrough is thorium > nuclear clocks, which IIRC are 5 orders of magnitude more stable than > cesium clocks. (And probably 5 orders of magnitude more expensive...) I've not heard of Thorium based clocks. But I've heard of "optical clocks" that are developed to get more precise and more stable versions of atomic clock times. Janis [*] https://www.ptb.de/cms/index.php?eID=tx_cms_showpic&file=277826&md5=7fb5fb394664810269e3e2d5204bb50950e98b4c¶meters%5B0%5D=eyJ3aWR0aCI6IjkwMG0iLCJoZWlnaHQiOiI3MDBtIiwiYm9keVRhZyI6Ijxib2R5¶meters%5B1%5D=IHN0eWxlPVwibWFyZ2luOjA7IGJhY2tncm91bmQ6I2ZmZjtcIj4iLCJ3cmFwIjoi¶meters%5B2%5D=PGEgaHJlZj1cImphdmFzY3JpcHQ6Y2xvc2UoKTtcIj4gfCA8XC9hPiJ9 Shorter link in German: https://www.ptb.de/cms/fileadmin/_processed_/csm_2022-08_TAI._deutsch_7a19aa286d.jpg > [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-19 17:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vu0b64$1jhpi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392707 |
On 19/04/2025 09:46, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 17.04.2025 17:56, David Brown wrote: >> On 16/04/2025 02:53, James Kuyper wrote: >>> On 4/15/25 18:56, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> ... >>>> The uncertainty in the timing of January 1, 1970, where 1970 is a >>>> year number in the current almost universally accepted Gregorian >>>> calendar, is essentially zero. >>> >>> Modern Cesium clock are accurate to about 1 ns/day.That's an effect >>> large enough that we can measure it, but cannot correct for it. We know >>> that the clocks disagree with each other, but the closest we can do to >>> correcting for that instability is to average over 450 different clock; >>> the average is 10 times more stable than the individual clocks. >>> >>> Note: the precision of cesium clocks has improved log-linearly since the >>> 1950s. They're 6 orders of magnitude better in 2008 than they were in >>> 1950. Who knows how much longer that will continue to be true? >>> >> >> I don't think cesium is still the current standard for the highest >> precision atomic clocks. > > Well, the "Cesium _fountain_" atomic clocks are still amongst > the most precise and they are in use in the world wide net of > atomic clocks that are interconnected to measure TAI.[*] And > the standard second is _defined_ on Caesium based transitions. > Caesium fountain clocks are old school, but still used. Rubidium is popular because it is cheaper, and very high stability atomic clocks use aluminium or strontium. Caesium is still the basis for the current definition of the second, but that will change in the next decade or so as accuracy of timekeeping has moved well beyond the original caesium standard. >> But anyway, the newest breakthrough is thorium >> nuclear clocks, which IIRC are 5 orders of magnitude more stable than >> cesium clocks. (And probably 5 orders of magnitude more expensive...) > > I've not heard of Thorium based clocks. But I've heard of > "optical clocks" that are developed to get more precise and > more stable versions of atomic clock times. > It was only last year that a good measurement of the resonant frequencies of the Thorium 229 nucleus was achieved - the science bit is done, now the engineering bit needs to be finished to get a practical nuclear clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-19 23:15 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20250419231546.00006a20@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #392713 |
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 17:15:42 +0200 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 19/04/2025 09:46, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > > On 17.04.2025 17:56, David Brown wrote: > >> On 16/04/2025 02:53, James Kuyper wrote: > >>> On 4/15/25 18:56, Keith Thompson wrote: > >>> ... > >>>> The uncertainty in the timing of January 1, 1970, where 1970 is a > >>>> year number in the current almost universally accepted Gregorian > >>>> calendar, is essentially zero. > >>> > >>> Modern Cesium clock are accurate to about 1 ns/day.That's an > >>> effect large enough that we can measure it, but cannot correct > >>> for it. We know that the clocks disagree with each other, but the > >>> closest we can do to correcting for that instability is to > >>> average over 450 different clock; the average is 10 times more > >>> stable than the individual clocks. > >>> > >>> Note: the precision of cesium clocks has improved log-linearly > >>> since the 1950s. They're 6 orders of magnitude better in 2008 > >>> than they were in 1950. Who knows how much longer that will > >>> continue to be true? > >> > >> I don't think cesium is still the current standard for the highest > >> precision atomic clocks. > > > > Well, the "Cesium _fountain_" atomic clocks are still amongst > > the most precise and they are in use in the world wide net of > > atomic clocks that are interconnected to measure TAI.[*] And > > the standard second is _defined_ on Caesium based transitions. > > > > Caesium fountain clocks are old school, but still used. Rubidium is > popular because it is cheaper, and very high stability atomic clocks > use aluminium or strontium. Caesium is still the basis for the > current definition of the second, but that will change in the next > decade or so as accuracy of timekeeping has moved well beyond the > original caesium standard. > > >> But anyway, the newest breakthrough is thorium > >> nuclear clocks, which IIRC are 5 orders of magnitude more stable > >> than cesium clocks. (And probably 5 orders of magnitude more > >> expensive...) > > > > I've not heard of Thorium based clocks. But I've heard of > > "optical clocks" that are developed to get more precise and > > more stable versions of atomic clock times. > > > > It was only last year that a good measurement of the resonant > frequencies of the Thorium 229 nucleus was achieved - the science bit > is done, now the engineering bit needs to be finished to get a > practical nuclear clock. > > Record my prediction: it's not going to happen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 20:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vu633c$2oo5h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392727 |
On 19/04/2025 22:15, Michael S wrote: > On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 17:15:42 +0200 > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> On 19/04/2025 09:46, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >>> On 17.04.2025 17:56, David Brown wrote: >>>> But anyway, the newest breakthrough is thorium >>>> nuclear clocks, which IIRC are 5 orders of magnitude more stable >>>> than cesium clocks. (And probably 5 orders of magnitude more >>>> expensive...) >>> >>> I've not heard of Thorium based clocks. But I've heard of >>> "optical clocks" that are developed to get more precise and >>> more stable versions of atomic clock times. >>> >> >> It was only last year that a good measurement of the resonant >> frequencies of the Thorium 229 nucleus was achieved - the science bit >> is done, now the engineering bit needs to be finished to get a >> practical nuclear clock. >> >> > > > Record my prediction: it's not going to happen. > > I don't know enough about Thorium 229 nuclear resonances to be able to predict one way or the other. Do you have a good reason or reference for your thoughts here?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 14:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87h62h19xd.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #392779 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]
> I don't know enough about Thorium 229 nuclear resonances to be able to
> predict one way or the other. Do you have a good reason or reference
> for your thoughts here?
Can you PLEASE take this somewhere else? (Or drop it, I don't care.)
Don't read anything into the fact that I replied to one particular
participant in the thread.
--
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 | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-22 01:07 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20250422010727.00007da4@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #392786 |
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 14:28:30 -0700 Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > [...] > > I don't know enough about Thorium 229 nuclear resonances to be able > > to predict one way or the other. Do you have a good reason or > > reference for your thoughts here? > > Can you PLEASE take this somewhere else? (Or drop it, I don't care.) > > Don't read anything into the fact that I replied to one particular > participant in the thread. > There are two types of usenet groups: - groups that suffer from significat amount of OT discussions - dead
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web