Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #392008 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-04-04 16:23 -0300 |
| Last post | 2025-10-16 00:43 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 698 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 16:23 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-04 21:18 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 17:31 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-04 20:34 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 17:37 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-04 21:01 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 14:36 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-04 20:39 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 17:43 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 17:46 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-08 19:00 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-05 14:54 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-05 17:54 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-05 16:10 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-05 23:37 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-06 14:41 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-06 10:52 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-06 14:45 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-04 13:48 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 17:58 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-06 05:47 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-06 16:13 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-06 07:32 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-06 19:03 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-07 05:45 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-07 21:02 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-07 19:31 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 10:12 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 12:35 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 16:50 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 17:28 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-08 10:32 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 19:04 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-08 14:18 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 23:38 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-08 16:27 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 01:02 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 22:55 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 22:56 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-09 15:07 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 00:49 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 00:20 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-10 12:08 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 16:23 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 12:00 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 04:28 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 14:34 +0100
Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-10 14:33 +0000
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 16:12 +0100
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-11 00:18 +0200
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 00:10 +0100
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 17:41 -0700
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-11 02:45 +0000
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 10:14 +0200
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 12:32 +0100
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-11 14:50 +0300
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 12:56 +0100
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-11 15:12 +0300
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-11 15:12 +0200
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 15:55 +0100
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 15:02 +0200
Re: Endless complaints Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-11 10:03 -0700
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 12:26 -0700
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 15:27 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 15:23 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 00:49 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 17:59 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-11 14:26 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 16:11 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-11 17:22 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 20:46 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 14:10 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-13 20:45 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-11 19:05 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-12 16:37 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 13:25 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-13 11:40 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-13 20:17 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 17:51 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-13 22:23 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-14 11:07 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-14 15:03 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-14 23:17 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-14 11:22 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-13 18:15 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 11:20 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-05 16:12 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-05 16:36 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-05 17:01 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 16:51 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-10 18:31 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 19:14 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 19:36 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 19:29 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 00:02 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-10 18:52 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 20:51 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-10 22:55 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 23:00 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 12:14 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-04 22:01 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 21:20 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 21:22 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 21:24 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 20:11 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-11 10:07 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 16:25 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-09 15:38 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 16:42 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-09 17:43 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-13 19:34 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-04-09 07:15 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 13:51 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 11:42 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 13:04 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 14:06 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-11 12:27 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 13:11 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 14:11 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 13:16 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 14:24 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 11:51 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 14:36 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 14:13 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 16:00 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 16:37 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-10 20:40 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-11 12:20 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-11 17:30 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-09 12:58 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 14:23 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-09 12:50 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 14:44 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-10 11:55 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-10 14:46 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 15:41 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-10 21:05 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 20:27 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 20:57 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 11:17 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 12:51 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 16:25 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 15:50 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 17:24 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 17:56 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 20:29 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 13:58 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 22:24 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 14:36 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 00:13 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 16:59 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 02:27 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 18:53 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-12 02:43 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 12:50 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-12 12:57 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 14:33 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-13 04:53 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-12 15:43 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 17:52 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-12 17:40 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-13 00:09 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-13 21:40 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-13 20:08 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-14 00:30 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-13 21:07 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 18:33 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-13 22:57 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 20:26 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 14:58 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 21:58 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 18:22 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 14:52 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-13 20:50 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 19:17 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-12 09:59 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 15:15 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-12 06:33 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 12:00 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-13 04:27 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-13 12:33 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-13 12:36 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-13 14:54 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-13 17:48 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-14 05:59 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-14 14:11 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-13 14:58 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-13 14:34 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-13 17:39 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-14 06:23 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-14 11:16 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2025-04-14 12:51 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-14 12:12 +0100
Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-14 14:18 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-14 15:33 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-14 16:22 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-15 09:17 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 11:30 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-15 15:34 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-15 13:51 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-04 07:40 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-04 07:31 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-04 18:08 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-05 10:42 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-10 06:43 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-05-10 15:56 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-10 17:48 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-05-11 08:20 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-10 14:29 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-05-11 08:21 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-11 12:02 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-05-11 15:30 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-11 16:29 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-11 18:49 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-11 14:41 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-11 17:43 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-11 15:06 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-11 18:30 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-11 18:15 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-11 19:09 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 00:16 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 02:23 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 07:19 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-12 15:34 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 22:42 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 07:31 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-14 21:12 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-13 09:30 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-13 22:28 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 13:31 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-14 20:44 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 21:45 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-12 17:24 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-12 00:07 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 00:43 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 02:27 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-12 17:18 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-28 09:54 -0800
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-28 16:42 -0800
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-31 07:03 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-31 03:53 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-31 18:26 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-01-31 18:33 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-31 21:02 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-12 19:53 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 23:03 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 19:04 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-12 17:08 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 13:38 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-13 12:41 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-13 23:16 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 14:35 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-13 15:10 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 15:41 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-13 18:38 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 19:37 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-13 23:54 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-13 21:19 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-13 21:12 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 22:38 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-01 21:55 -0800
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-03-01 23:37 -0800
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-14 03:35 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:54 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-14 06:31 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-06-10 06:01 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-14 12:24 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-14 13:57 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-14 22:27 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-15 09:32 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-14 13:00 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-14 13:20 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-14 23:20 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-15 11:23 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-06 13:55 -0800
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-11 17:59 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-05-12 10:11 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-12 17:09 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-11 01:09 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-11 17:30 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-12 16:18 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-14 11:09 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-13 15:57 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-04 13:52 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-15 13:19 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 18:17 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-15 19:07 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 21:46 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-16 01:41 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-15 22:37 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-16 03:30 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 20:50 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-16 18:11 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-16 18:43 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-16 20:05 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-03 03:47 -0800
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-02-03 04:21 -0800
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-02-04 23:40 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-02-05 08:10 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-05 11:30 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2026-02-05 15:21 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-16 14:12 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-16 07:35 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 12:32 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-16 15:08 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-16 14:23 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-04 21:32 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 15:31 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 15:01 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 15:34 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> - 2025-04-19 11:01 +1000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-19 09:20 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-16 14:21 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 15:06 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-16 10:47 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 16:14 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-16 18:18 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-16 12:28 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 13:03 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 23:14 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 17:26 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 02:26 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 20:14 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 15:37 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 15:19 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-18 16:58 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 18:27 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-19 09:09 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-17 00:59 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 02:09 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-16 21:43 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 23:42 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-16 23:49 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 01:48 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 19:18 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 12:16 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 14:36 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-17 11:47 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 20:18 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-17 12:55 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 21:44 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-17 15:32 -0700
Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-04-17 21:21 +0000
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2025-04-17 22:29 +0000
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-04-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2025-04-18 18:33 +0000
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 20:10 +0100
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 16:07 +0100
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-18 16:52 +0000
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-24 22:43 +0200
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-25 07:50 +0200
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-04-25 07:04 +0100
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-25 10:38 +0200
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-25 10:42 +0200
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-18 15:24 +0000
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2025-04-18 15:48 +0000
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 16:57 +0100
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 18:46 +0200
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 18:40 +0100
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-19 08:36 +0200
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 17:49 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 02:19 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 17:47 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 14:41 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-16 14:09 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-16 17:37 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-06 05:59 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-07 12:32 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-07 14:54 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-07 13:50 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-11 23:48 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 15:45 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-16 15:44 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 13:18 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-15 19:55 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-16 07:19 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-16 07:44 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 12:01 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 16:40 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-18 14:10 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 23:27 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-19 08:27 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 11:26 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-19 13:32 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 14:05 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-19 12:54 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 20:57 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-19 14:07 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-20 00:34 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 12:18 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-20 12:43 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 18:46 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-20 20:51 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-20 15:36 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 00:29 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-20 19:08 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 12:26 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-21 03:16 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 12:57 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-21 18:43 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 20:57 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-21 20:25 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 00:33 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-21 23:46 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 10:32 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-22 01:06 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 02:24 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 10:47 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 11:28 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-22 19:19 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-22 19:26 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 21:03 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-22 21:40 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-23 00:43 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-22 16:59 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-23 00:01 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-23 11:15 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-23 10:58 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-23 14:50 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-23 16:00 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-23 17:39 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-24 07:41 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-24 09:31 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-23 17:31 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-23 18:43 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-23 18:43 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-23 21:49 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-24 15:12 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-24 15:28 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-24 17:21 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-24 18:30 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-24 17:59 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-25 15:19 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-24 07:40 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-24 09:26 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-24 10:52 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-24 12:44 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-24 14:31 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-24 14:25 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-24 14:51 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-24 15:32 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-24 18:49 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-24 18:03 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-24 18:26 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-25 08:53 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-04 22:17 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-09-26 02:00 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-25 02:56 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-25 13:48 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-25 17:51 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-25 17:48 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-24 18:51 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-23 09:01 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 09:32 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 09:14 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-20 15:07 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-04-20 23:19 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-21 13:51 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 16:36 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-21 21:06 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 23:54 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 16:12 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 01:26 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 18:22 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 11:43 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-22 14:15 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 23:52 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-22 16:22 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 10:40 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 18:25 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 10:19 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 12:39 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 02:21 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 09:54 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-22 20:16 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 19:54 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-22 21:11 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 20:43 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-23 17:41 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-19 16:28 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 19:59 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 20:15 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 12:41 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 12:34 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-19 14:35 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 16:24 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-19 16:36 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-19 15:22 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 20:55 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-19 13:55 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-20 00:52 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 13:00 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-20 14:53 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-20 17:34 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-20 16:25 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-20 19:01 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 18:10 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 18:07 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 17:55 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-20 17:28 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-21 03:07 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 13:46 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 14:21 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 00:14 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 00:19 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 15:39 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 10:12 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-21 22:16 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 01:12 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-22 03:31 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 12:33 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-22 14:36 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-22 16:10 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 17:27 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-22 17:48 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-22 14:31 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-22 22:39 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-22 17:53 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-22 15:02 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-23 19:05 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-23 18:52 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-23 13:22 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-21 07:34 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 13:26 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 13:39 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-04 21:35 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-19 15:15 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 20:36 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-19 19:43 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 11:27 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 11:25 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-20 11:25 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-20 16:53 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-16 12:29 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 12:38 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-16 19:15 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 15:28 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 14:44 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-15 06:14 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-15 06:57 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-15 09:25 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-16 11:45 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 16:57 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-20 15:00 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 17:45 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-24 22:35 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-25 07:46 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-25 10:29 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-25 14:22 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 11:15 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-15 15:25 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 13:55 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-15 13:33 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 15:30 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-15 18:22 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 17:42 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-15 20:14 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-16 07:39 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-15 20:37 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-16 12:09 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-16 12:04 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-15 14:13 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 15:41 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-16 11:58 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 15:07 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-14 23:12 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 01:35 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-15 14:05 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 15:44 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-15 15:31 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 17:38 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-12 14:39 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-12 14:21 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-12 15:52 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-12 16:32 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-13 16:26 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-13 14:48 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 15:01 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-11 18:24 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-13 21:03 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-13 20:56 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 11:24 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 01:30 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 02:35 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-27 09:17 -0800
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-27 15:28 -0800
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 11:15 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-13 20:57 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-13 20:53 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-13 22:14 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-13 21:03 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-14 06:43 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-14 09:00 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-15 09:40 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-15 09:18 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-15 10:39 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-14 08:44 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2025-04-11 19:45 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-11 16:00 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-15 15:44 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 20:21 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 15:43 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-11 02:12 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 20:44 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 11:33 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-10 15:14 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-10 16:25 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-10 21:42 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 11:35 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 15:49 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-10 20:57 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-11 14:37 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-11 11:16 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-11 18:31 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 11:10 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-11 14:02 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-11 15:24 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-11 18:46 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 12:01 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-08 10:47 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2025-04-09 09:00 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 11:36 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 14:54 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-08 10:59 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 11:51 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-09 12:56 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-06 16:26 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-06 16:02 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-06 16:53 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 19:45 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 15:23 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 15:35 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-04-07 03:56 +0042
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-07 09:16 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-04-06 14:18 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-06 17:08 +0200
Beyond the pale... (Was: do { quit; } else { }) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-04-07 16:08 +0000
Re: Beyond the pale... (Was: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-07 18:39 +0200
Re: Beyond the pale... (Was: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-07 23:30 +0000
Re: Beyond the pale... (Was: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-08 12:39 +0300
Re: Beyond the pale... (Was: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-08 16:57 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-07 08:06 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-06 08:14 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-06 23:48 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-07 09:21 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-07 04:50 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 16:40 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-09 15:01 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 17:04 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-09 16:26 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-09 17:54 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-09 17:26 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-09 17:07 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-09 19:11 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 20:21 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-09 19:35 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 19:09 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-09 19:29 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-13 14:55 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 14:35 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-14 11:22 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 10:34 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-09 19:09 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 19:11 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-09 19:18 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-13 14:54 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-13 15:36 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-14 11:19 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 11:44 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-13 15:13 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 14:46 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-13 16:07 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 14:05 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-14 11:31 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 10:37 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-09 15:31 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 19:07 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Wuns Haerst <Wuns.Haerst@wurstfabrik.at> - 2025-05-07 06:56 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-07 06:52 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Wuns Haerst <Wuns.Haerst@wurstfabrik.at> - 2025-05-07 15:46 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-08 06:04 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-08 14:24 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-27 09:15 -0800
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-27 15:36 -0800
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 11:09 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-06 02:58 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-06 12:05 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-04-18 10:30 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-10-08 14:14 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-10-08 09:59 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-10-08 16:05 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-10-08 17:08 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-10-08 16:35 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-10-15 16:04 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-10-08 16:06 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-10-15 23:04 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-10-15 20:41 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-10-16 00:43 +0100
Page 23 of 35 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23] 24 25 … 35 Next page →
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-24 15:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <DQsOP.3012036$TBhc.1754234@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #392863 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 24/04/2025 13:25, David Brown wrote: >> On 23/04/2025 19:43, bart wrote: > >>> By the 500 such macro definitions, and the EXTENSIVE use of such macro >>> invocations instead of functions, in a class of application I'm very >>> familiar with. >>> >> >> So you don't know. You guessed. > >Why are you automatically sticking up for THEM and not ME? Wow! How self-centered can you get?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-24 18:49 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vudtid$22j1p$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392867 |
On 24/04/2025 16:32, Scott Lurndal wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 24/04/2025 13:25, David Brown wrote: >>> On 23/04/2025 19:43, bart wrote: >> >>>> By the 500 such macro definitions, and the EXTENSIVE use of such macro >>>> invocations instead of functions, in a class of application I'm very >>>> familiar with. >>>> >>> >>> So you don't know. You guessed. >> >> Why are you automatically sticking up for THEM and not ME? > > Wow! How self-centered can you get? OK, you're OK with everybody in this group constantly bullying, disrespecting, belittling and insulting me? I gave an opinion about X, and people immediately disagreed with me despite not being familiar with that field. They gave it thje benefit of a doubt, and suggested there were good reasons for it being as it is. So I was calling it: I'm interested in why they did that. I'm trying to stand up for myself as I'M AT THE END OF MY FUCKING TETHER HERE. ALL YOU PEOPLE WANT TO DO IS JUST TRASH EVERYTHING I'VE DONE. EVERY SINGLE THING I SAY IS WRONG. NOTHING I SAY IS EVER RIGHT. WHATEVER IT IS I SAY, YOU SAY THE OPPOSITE THING. MY SELF-ESTEEM HAS NEVER BEEN LOWER - YOU HAVE DESTROYED ME. AND WHEN I TRY QUESTION IT - THEN *YOU* ACCUSE ME OF BEING SELF-CENTRED!!!!!!! FUCK YOU, CUNT. AND FUCKING TROLLS, ALL OF YOU.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-24 18:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vudue2$24asj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392870 |
On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 18:49:00 +0100 bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled: >I'm trying to stand up for myself as I'M AT THE END OF MY FUCKING TETHER >HERE. > >ALL YOU PEOPLE WANT TO DO IS JUST TRASH EVERYTHING I'VE DONE. > >EVERY SINGLE THING I SAY IS WRONG. NOTHING I SAY IS EVER RIGHT. WHATEVER >IT IS I SAY, YOU SAY THE OPPOSITE THING. > >MY SELF-ESTEEM HAS NEVER BEEN LOWER - YOU HAVE DESTROYED ME. > >AND WHEN I TRY QUESTION IT - THEN *YOU* ACCUSE ME OF BEING >SELF-CENTRED!!!!!!! > >FUCK YOU, CUNT. > >AND FUCKING TROLLS, ALL OF YOU. Oh dear, look at those poor toys being flung out of the pram at supersonic speed. Get a grip you snowflake twat, its just a sodding newsgroup.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-24 18:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <87v7qtvxon.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #392870 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> I'm trying to stand up for myself as I'M AT THE END OF MY FUCKING
> TETHER HERE.
>
> ALL YOU PEOPLE WANT TO DO IS JUST TRASH EVERYTHING I'VE DONE.
>
> EVERY SINGLE THING I SAY IS WRONG. NOTHING I SAY IS EVER
> RIGHT. WHATEVER IT IS I SAY, YOU SAY THE OPPOSITE THING.
>
> MY SELF-ESTEEM HAS NEVER BEEN LOWER - YOU HAVE DESTROYED ME.
[...]
Bart, if this is sincere, please consider stepping away from
comp.lang.c for a while. I have no motivation for this post other
than concern for your well-being.
--
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 | Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-25 08:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vufiii$3kbfu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392877 |
On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 18:26:16 -0700 Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wibbled: >bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >[...] >> I'm trying to stand up for myself as I'M AT THE END OF MY FUCKING >> TETHER HERE. >> >> ALL YOU PEOPLE WANT TO DO IS JUST TRASH EVERYTHING I'VE DONE. >> >> EVERY SINGLE THING I SAY IS WRONG. NOTHING I SAY IS EVER >> RIGHT. WHATEVER IT IS I SAY, YOU SAY THE OPPOSITE THING. >> >> MY SELF-ESTEEM HAS NEVER BEEN LOWER - YOU HAVE DESTROYED ME. >[...] > >Bart, if this is sincere, please consider stepping away from >comp.lang.c for a while. I have no motivation for this post other >than concern for your well-being. If its true and not just him grandstanding then he has bigger problems than having a meltdown on a newsgroup because people disagreed with him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-04 22:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <86cycn63ha.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #392877 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] > >> I'm trying to stand up for myself as I'M AT THE END OF MY FUCKING >> TETHER HERE. >> >> ALL YOU PEOPLE WANT TO DO IS JUST TRASH EVERYTHING I'VE DONE. >> >> EVERY SINGLE THING I SAY IS WRONG. NOTHING I SAY IS EVER >> RIGHT. WHATEVER IT IS I SAY, YOU SAY THE OPPOSITE THING. >> >> MY SELF-ESTEEM HAS NEVER BEEN LOWER - YOU HAVE DESTROYED ME. > > [...] > > Bart, if this is sincere, please consider stepping away from > comp.lang.c for a while. I have no motivation for this post other > than concern for your well-being. If any poster shows signs of being enormously distraught by exchanges in a newsgroup (and comp.lang.c specifically), I hope other participants would notice that and consider disengaging with that poster for some period of time, not only for the sake of the distraught poster but also for the benefit of the rest of the group.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 02:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <10b4ojq$m4cd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392877 |
On 25/04/2025 02:26, Keith Thompson wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] >> I'm trying to stand up for myself as I'M AT THE END OF MY FUCKING >> TETHER HERE. >> >> ALL YOU PEOPLE WANT TO DO IS JUST TRASH EVERYTHING I'VE DONE. >> >> EVERY SINGLE THING I SAY IS WRONG. NOTHING I SAY IS EVER >> RIGHT. WHATEVER IT IS I SAY, YOU SAY THE OPPOSITE THING. >> >> MY SELF-ESTEEM HAS NEVER BEEN LOWER - YOU HAVE DESTROYED ME. > [...] > > Bart, if this is sincere, please consider stepping away from > comp.lang.c for a while. I have no motivation for this post other > than concern for your well-being. > Thank you, I'm fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-25 02:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <20250424195548.17@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #392870 |
On 2025-04-24, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > NOTHING I SAY IS EVER RIGHT. Well, /that/ isn't; you're blindly discounting all the times someone has agreed with you. -- 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 | Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-25 13:48 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <2htm0kdsne47brc5fvjanro38j84qmo0j8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #392878 |
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 02:56:44 -0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku wrote: >On 2025-04-24, bart wrote: >> NOTHING I SAY IS EVER RIGHT. > >Well, /that/ isn't; you're blindly discounting all the times >someone has agreed with you. here we are all wrong in something
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-25 17:51 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vugb1j$9r51$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392886 |
On 25/04/2025 13:48, Rosario19 wrote: > On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 02:56:44 -0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku wrote: > >> On 2025-04-24, bart wrote: >>> NOTHING I SAY IS EVER RIGHT. >> >> Well, /that/ isn't; you're blindly discounting all the times >> someone has agreed with you. > > here we are all wrong in something Not me - I'm never wrong. (Except perhaps in this post :-) )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-25 17:48 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vugatb$9r51$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392863 |
On 24/04/2025 15:51, bart wrote: > On 24/04/2025 13:25, David Brown wrote: >> On 23/04/2025 19:43, bart wrote: > >>> By the 500 such macro definitions, and the EXTENSIVE use of such >>> macro invocations instead of functions, in a class of application I'm >>> very familiar with. >>> >> >> So you don't know. You guessed. > > Why are you automatically sticking up for THEM and not ME? Why are you criticising them (the Lua authors) when you have no idea what is behind their code? I am not saying that you are wrong as such - maybe the Lua code /is/ overly complicated, and uses more macros than makes sense, and the code is harder to maintain because of it. Maybe there is no particularly good reason for this - maybe the Lua programmers are just not very good developers. What I am saying is that you don't have the information or background to give a fair critique of the code. All you are giving is a highly subjective opinion based on a bit of the code, and your own strong prejudices about C in general, and certain C features in particular. Of course I too could say that at a first glance, there are too many low-value macros here, the identifier names are poorly chosen, and at least some of the macros would be better if they were replaced by inline functions. But I know that would be a first-glance viewpoint, and could easily be wrong or unfair. > > What qualifications and what experience would somebody need for David > Brown to give credence to their opinion? I already outlined that. > > I'm sure there are lots projects you can look at and know straight off > that its uses of macros or whatever is over the top. I am not so sure of that. Of course you can form a first impression in many cases, but I don't like to place too much weight on that. It is not unreasonable to talk about your first impressions, if they are clear enough, but it should be a qualified judgement. Don't say "this code abuses too many macros" - say "from what I have seen so far, it looks like the code uses more macros than I think is sensible for such a task". > > Suppose you reported that here, but I suggested that you don't know > that; you're only guessing? > If you called me out on a claim about some code without appropriate understanding of the context, then I should be grateful for the correction. I am not going to promise I /would/ be grateful - I'm a mere human, with as fragile an ego as the next person. > >> You don't have any idea /why/ the developers choose to use macros like >> this - you simply assume that because you have written an interpreter >> with little use of macros, > > I've written a million lines of code with little use of macros. So what? That does not mean you can judge whether the given macros are a good solution in this code. In fact, I'd say it makes you a /worse/ judge than most C programmers, since you are unfamiliar with macro usage (except to criticise it without justification). I've written a million lines of code, and never touched Rust - does that mean I can tell Rust programmers that their choices are inefficient and impractical? > > They are prevalent in C simply because the language has them and people > will use them. Even if you ignore the ones that only exist people > because don't like to use enums for named constants. > They are prevalent in C programming primarily because they are very useful in C programming, and fully supported by the language and tools. Do you also complain about people using the number 7 in their C code? After all, it is available in the language, but it is completely unnecessary - people could just write "6 + 1" instead and avoid all those silly sevens. Or do you think perhaps people write the number 7 rather than "6 + 1" because it gives them clearer code in a more convenient manner, just like good use of macros does? > >> What your experience tells you is that is that it is /possible/ to >> implement a little virtual machine for a simple language without using >> C macros. > >> It tells you nothing about whether or not it is a good idea, because >> you have not tried it out for comparison. It tells you nothing about >> how best to implement Lua in C, because that is a very different >> language from your languages. > > The example I gave was from ADD; my language has ADD too! Except that > Lua's ADD works between Ints and Floats (Floats only before 5.1?); mine > works between Ints, Floats, Strings, Bignums and Sets. > > So, how different is it really? > Lua is an established language used by lots of people - it is documented, popular, and battle-tested (both as a language, and the tools) - yours is not. It is designed as an embedded scripting language - yours is, AFAIK, not. Lua is based on tables (for hashmaps, arrays, etc.), while yours AFAIK is not. Lua has anonymous functions - indeed, all functions are anonymous in Lua. Lua has support for OOP via tables. It has proper scoping. I'm confident there are a great many differences, though I don't know details of your language. I'm sure there are plenty of similarities however, as there are between any pair of languages. >> It tells you nothing about the best structure for a core project >> written by multiple people, with extensions written by hundreds or >> thousands of people, and with many orders of magnitude more end users >> - because you just have a one-person language. > > You forgot the bit where I said I've been doing this since the 1980s, on > a few languages of my own, both dynamic and statically typed. And I've > looked at lots of others including their implementations. > No, I didn't forget. > I've also got my C compiler to build and run some of those (Lua and > Seed7 among them). > I've compiled Lua too, linked in with my own code. > I even created a C interpreter. > > I've experimented with half a dozen kinds of bytecode dispatcher, and > several methods of type dispatching, and tried out AST tree-walkers. > > Some of my interpreters were embedded, and run within commercial > products, and used by other people to create their own add-on programs. > I realise you have done lots of stuff, and have lots of experience. I simply don't see it as relevant to be able to judge the way the Lua source code is structured without further knowledge of that code. And while I am loathe to make ad hominem judgements or appeals to authority, you are a guy off the internet who has made a lifetime career of living in your own bubble, avoiding any contact or information from other languages, other software, or computer science research - convinced in your own superiority in language design and implementation over the entire rest of humanity. Lua was designed and implemented by university professors - experts in the field, familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of lots of languages and implementation techniques. The language and its implementation has been refined and developed with the feedback of huge numbers of people. Of course you can have your subjective opinion on the language and its implementation. It is only natural that you would prefer your language, and your style of implementation. But do you understand that I do not consider your opinion to be objective? I am not giving any kind of opinion or critique on the Lua code, because I know I am not able to give a fair and justified analysis. I do not think you are either. >> And to cap it all, you (AFAIUI) don't even use C to implement any of >> this stuff - you use your own languages. (Those may well be a better >> choice than C for implementing virtual machines.) > > I did try C at one point. That didn't use macros either. > >> The way you could /know/ the best way to implement a Lua virtual >> machine in C would be to investigate if the Lua developers, or any >> other groups, have tried to implement the Lua VM in different ways and >> seen how well they work. Or you could find books or articles that >> discuss different ways of implementing VMs. > > Maybe /I/ should write a book or article instead! Perhaps you should. I am sure you have a lot of information (about many topics) that you could put in a book - or at least a series of articles. It would be a more constructive use of your keyboard than a lot of these Usenet threads :-) > >> >> There are perhaps a half-dozen basic ways of implementing language >> virtual machines. There are a very large number of interpreted or >> byte- coded languages. You have experience of implementing a couple >> of simple languages, for personal use, using either a strangely >> restricted subset of C or one of your own languages. > > How many interpreters do you think the developers of Lua have worked on? > (And how many of those developers also devised and programmed its > implemenation language?) I don't know the Lua developers personally - but since the core team are university professors, I imagine they have at least /some/ suitable qualifications and knowledge. > > You describe my languages as 'simple'; how much more complex do you > think Lua is? > > I find it disappointing that you don't want to acknowledge that I might > know something of this field, that I have extensive experience of it, > and that my opinions might be valid. I /do/ acknowledge your experience. I don't acknowledge that you are in a position to judge whether the macros used in the implementation of Lua are a good idea or not. Can't you understand that difference? > > More so that you seem to know little about Lua, but decide to give them > the benefit of a doubt anyway. > Note - again - that I have not said their use of macros was good. I have said that neither you nor I are in a position to say their use of macros was bad. > /Maybe/ they had good reasons for using so many macros, but /maybe/ so > do I for having so few! > Equally, I am not in a position to say that your use of few macros is bad or that your code would be improved with more of them. > So why are you automatically assuming they must be right, and I must be > wrong? Why are you assuming I have said they are right in the way they designed their code, or that I have said you were wrong? Stop trying to view everything as binary. > > Further, this is part of a survey of interpreters running a recursive > Fibonacci benchmark: > That tells you nothing useful. > So I know fuck-all about writing interpreters, they are all toys, my > languages are toys, and my opinion counts for nothing? > Your opinions count as your opinions. Nothing more, nothing less.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-24 18:51 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vudq78$20dtl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392861 |
On 24.04.2025 14:25, David Brown wrote:
> On 23/04/2025 19:43, bart wrote:
>> On 23/04/2025 16:31, David Brown wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> We are all going to have different first-glance opinions on different
>>> bits of code.
>>
>> What's your initial opinion of this 500-line example:
>> [...]
>
> You missed the bit where I said I am not interested in examining bad
> code. Nor am I interested in Lisp, so I have no interest in looking at
> that.
Right. (I see that bart still does this stupid argument trick.)
>> Here's one of the functions from it:
But I spent a *few seconds* to simply _reformat_ that code (in my
brain[*]) and it seems quite obvious!
[*] Below you find the brain dump codified for the post...
>>
>> lval rest(lval *h, lval *g) { lval *f = h-1; lval r = 0; for (;
>> f>=g; f--)
>> r = cons(h, *f, r); return r; }
lval rest (lval *h, lval *g)
{
lval r = 0;
for (lval *f = h-1; f>=g; f--)
r = cons(h, *f, r);
return r;
}
I just swapped the two [independent] assignments (r and f) so I got
the "complete" 'for' loop which is even of the simple type (the one
that also bart may understand), with just one running parameter 'f'.
They're obviously constructing in 'r' the return value by iterating
from the right to left. (The functional effect of course depends on
cons() that is undocumented here, but r=cons(..., r) is exposing.)
>
> Presumably that makes sense to the people who wrote the code. But it
> makes no sense to me.
(It's obviously much simpler than it was in its unformatted state.)
> That is /not/ because of some syntax or
> formatting issue, or the missing clause in the "for" loop - it is
> because I don't know the types, the functions (or macros) used, the
> purpose of this function, the way memory and resource management is
> handled in this code, the meaning of the single-letter identifiers, or
> anything else about it.
And of course you're right.
>
> How the code is formatted is a drop in the ocean in the effort needed to
> understand the code, what it does, and where it fits with everything
> else in the code base.
>
>> Here's what my visualisation tool produces:
>>
>> global function rest(ref i32 h, g)i64 =
>> ref i32 f
>> i32 r
>>
>> f := h-1
>> r := 0
>> while f >= g do
>> r := cons(h,f^,r)
>> f--
>> od
>> return r
>> end
In my book this non-abstracted form is harder to understand than the
simple reformatted 'for' loop version. (and if we'd replace the 'while'
by a 'goto' based construct it would get yet more harder to identify
the semantic building blocks. (But it's pointless to discuss that with
you, bart; given your arguments yet I'm sure you don't grok that.)
>> Yes, you might apply a C formatter too, and keep it in C, it won't fix
>> that for-loop though.
Yes, the 'for' loop wasn't sensibly used for that algorithm. But it
was trivial to fix that. (And it's no argument against 'for', just an
argument against bad programmers and badly written code, as David also
said.)
>
> The for-loop is basically irrelevant for understanding the code.
>
> I fully agree that your "visualisation" here - or a re-factoring in C to
> use a "while" loop rather than a "for" loop - makes the code easier to
> read and makes it more obvious what the mechanics of the function are.
The (low-level) [imperative] _mechanics_ wasn't the crucial thing here
for understanding the code.
> And if I were writing the same function myself, I'd use a while loop
> rather than a for loop.
I wouldn't, as I demonstrated.
I'd guess you also wouldn't have used 'while' if you'd also have spent
the 5-10 seconds (that I had spent) to "analyze" the code beforehand.
> So don't misunderstand me here - I am not a fan
> of the way that function is written. But I can't judge the format
> without a lot more context, and such judgement would be highly
> subjective. And the formatting is a very minor aspect of understanding
> the code.
Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-23 09:01 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vua380$2dgom$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392827 |
On 22/04/2025 21:26, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-04-22, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> BTW here is that macro definition from Lua:
>>
>> #define op_arith(L,iop,fop) { \
>> TValue *v1 = vRB(i); \
>> TValue *v2 = vRC(i); \
>> op_arith_aux(L, v1, v2, iop, fop); }
>
> I'm assuming that op_arith is called numerous times to define handling
> for various VM opcodes.
>
> It *reliably* writes a bunch of code that would otherwise require a lot
> of error-prone copy and paste.
>
> This is language extension; the LUA maintainers have written
> themselves an op_arith language feature.
>
That's a good way to describe it.
> The generated codee is large and complex, but at least you can see it.
Yes, but that is only needed by the people writing and debugging the
macros involved.
>
> If that language feature were wired into the compiler, it would only
> be harder to work with. All that morass of code would be hidden
> inside, generated into some intermediate representation (that you
> can perhaps intercept and get in some readable form, in a
> language/notation you will have to learn).
>
>> It calls yet more macros, and those in turn call others; here are a few
>> for vRB:
>>
>> #define vRB(i) s2v(RB(i))
>> #define s2v(o) (&(o)->val)
>> #define RB(i) (base+GETARG_B(i))
>> #define GETARG_A(i) getarg(i, POS_A, SIZE_A)
>> #define getarg(i,pos,size) (cast_int(((i)>>(pos)) & MASK1(size,0)))
>> #define cast_int(i) cast(int, (i))
>> #define MASK1(n,p) ((~((~(Instruction)0)<<(n)))<<(p))
>> #define cast(t, exp) ((t)(exp))
>
> Some of these look like low value. For instance cast_int(x) saves no
> characters over cast(int,x), and ony one character over cast(int, x),
> and that is longer than just (int)(x), not to mention (int)x
> situations where you can omit parentheses.
It is certainly split up more than I would have written, but there are
perhaps good reasons for the style. I haven't seen any more of the code
than what Bart has quoted here - perhaps there are other situations in
which "cast_int" is being passed as a parameter in another macro. Or
maybe there are historical reasons - "cast_int" came first, then there
were other "cast_X" macros added later, then a generic "cast" macro and
"cast_int" was redefined in terms of the generic one. Maybe there are
development or test versions of some of these macros where the plain
casts are replaced by runtime checks before the conversion, and what we
see here is just the release versions without the checks.
Or maybe they were just written by someone who likes to divide things up
a bit more, or they were mixed from different sources or authors with
minimal changes (that might explain the different capitalisation styles).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-22 09:32 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vu7gmh$47a0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392766 |
On 21.04.2025 01:29, bart wrote:
> On 20/04/2025 23:36, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>>> for(p=sqliteHashFirst(&pSchema->trigHash); p; p=sqliteHashNext(p)){
>>> sqlite3DeleteTrigger(db, (Trigger*)sqliteHashData(p));
>>> }
>
>>
>> I might write it like this:
>>
>> for ( p = sqliteHashFirst(&pSchema->trigHash);
>> p != NULL;
>> p = sqliteHashNext(p) )
>> {
>> sqlite3DeleteTrigger(db, (Trigger*)sqliteHashData(p));
>> }
>
>> I have certain preferences (spaces around most operators, explicit
>> comparison to NULL, willingness to split long lines) that other C
>> programmers may or may not share.
>
> I rarely see complex loops split over multiple lines
(There's obviously a lot you haven't seen.)
> (mainly when they
> get so long that they'd overflow the line, but they can still be complex
> enough before then).
>
> But the thing is, once you split it into multiple lines, then there is
> little advantage over using a regular 'while' loop:
You still have the controlling elements in one place with 'for'.
> [...]
>
>>> It keeps it even more together, which you seem to like.
>>
>> That's something you invented. I find it ugly, and I presume you'd
>> agree. The fact that you think that someone else would prefer it
>> indicates that you don't understand how other people think.
>
> AFAIK it is legal C code, and I invented it because somebody said things
> that belong together should be together in one place.
Yes, that's a commonplace. (But "one place" doesn't mean "stuffed" or
"all in one line".)
> However, I have
> seen actual examples like that, in for-headers that that use
> comma-separated expressions.
(You can see and find arbitrary code, better or worse.)
>
>
>> I'd rather not write `for (ch in 0..255)` because it's a syntax error.
>
> It's a syntax error because the form doesn't naturally exist in C; you'd
> have to emulate using macros, which is a poor solution.
Yes, and that's his point; it's not "C".
If I want abstractions I don't (unless I have to) use "C". If I want to
have clean concepts, say iterating over an indexed array, I can use in
"C"
for (i=0; i<N; i++)
arr[i] = fun (arr[i]);
which is clean enough for me. But I might prefer (with other languages)
to not care about the bounds in the first place, and use
for (i := lwb(arr) to upb(arr)) # not "C"
arr[i] := fun (arr[i]);
if I'd want to avoid errors with the bounds. But the real thing I'd want
is a functional approach where I don't need indices at all
iterate (arr, fun); # not "C"
>
>> You have the luxury of using your own language.
>
> That 'ch in 0..255' form or close equivalent is supported by that long
> set of languages I listed earlier. It's not my invention, I just copied it.
>
> It is just something that is desirable. Look again at the C version: it
> looks off. (At least, you'd use a shorter loop index!)
There's a lot I'd like to have that I don't find in the "C" language.
If I choose to use (or have to use) "C" I use the options I have to best
solve my tasks.
> [...]
>
>> If you don't like C-style for loop, they absolutely should not
>> exist in a language for which you are, if I understand correctly,
>> the sole implementer and the sole user.
>
> But I hear so much about how wonderful it is, how multi-purpose, how
> indispensible, how superior to an ordinary 'for' (admittedly from people
> who don't have a choice) that I didn't want to miss out!
No one said that. - You should stop your regular misrepresentations and
also your misinterpretations! - STOP IT, stupid!
Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-22 09:14 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vu7fkg$3bq1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392760 |
On 20.04.2025 21:51, bart wrote:
> On 20/04/2025 17:46, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 20.04.2025 13:43, bart wrote:
>>> On 20/04/2025 11:18, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>>> On 19.04.2025 15:05, bart wrote:
>>>
>>> But overloading in the form of 30-40 integer types to represent the 8
>>> types i8-i64 and u8-u64, plus the 16 different combinations of writing
>>> 'unsigned long long int', and so on, is fine. As are the dozens
>>> (hundreds?) of macros in stdint.h/inttypes.h.
>>
>> I haven't said this "is fine". It wasn't at all the topic here.
>
> Sorry, I forgot the rules. [...]
What rules? You're again making up things. - Instead of arguing on
the topic you switched to something else that you dislike about "C".
>
> In C? I don't recall any examples in C that could be written without 'for'.
(We've obviously been speaking about different things.)
>
>> It makes not much sense to spread them across a multi-line block
>> of statements. - If you haven't ever experienced that, and still
>> cannot see and understand that if explained to you, then I can't
>> help you.[*]
>
> Here's the example you snipped:
>
> for(p=sqliteHashFirst(&pSchema->trigHash); p; p=sqliteHashNext(p)){
> sqlite3DeleteTrigger(db, (Trigger*)sqliteHashData(p));
> }
>
> In my opinion, that for-header is too complex. You can barely make out
> the condition (that lonely 'p' which you have to hunt for).
You find (and can make up) arbitrary examples of badly written code.
How is that 'for' loop with all in one line worse than the respective
'while' loop if stupidly written in one line.
If you have complex expressions you format it accordingly. Moreover,
you choose appropriate names for your variables and functions.
>
>> The point is that if you have programming elements that are
>> related to a loop construct (initialization, exit condition,
>> update for next iteration) it makes sense to keep them together.
>
> So what about this then (another example you snipped):
>
> for(p=sqliteHashFirst(&pSchema->trigHash); p; sqlite3DeleteTrigger(db,
> (Trigger*)sqliteHashData(p)), p=sqliteHashNext(p));
>
> It keeps it even more together, which you seem to like.
You are talking nonsense. Again; how is that better than a 'while'
loop where everything is on one line. - Are you deliberately playing
the stupid?
To keep things together means that you have the controlling elements
together. To not have parts of the controlling elements at the very
end of the block that the control construct controls.
(From the other posts I see that the folks here understand that; so
why are you playing the stupid?)
>> [...]
>
> I think it is YOU whose brain is so bound to having just the ONE kind of
> loop to do half a dozen different jobs, none of them well.
(I didn't say that. - Stop such misinterpretations and imputations!)
> [...]
>
>> Why do you again make
>> up things. - The point is to keep things together that belong
>> together.
>
> Why are you so crazy about putting everything onto one line? [...]
(I haven't said that. - Stop it!)
> You're
> saying that:
>
> ONE; TWO; THREE
>
> is always better than:
>
> ONE;
> TWO;
> THREE;
(No I haven't said that. - Stop it!)
> [...]
>
> This is an example which I started off trying to simplify:
>
> for (monthIdx = 0; monthIdx < 12 && yearDay >=
> yearDays[leapYear][monthIdx]; monthIdx++) ;
>
> I simply can't see it.
You can simply (and obviously) format it appropriately...
for (monthIdx = 0;
monthIdx < 12 && yearDay >= yearDays[leapYear][monthIdx];
monthIdx++)
;
> So the first step is to turn it into a while loop:
Why? It's completely unnecessary to _rewrite_ that. A _reformat_ is
not only simpler (and safer to do), it's the straightforward way.
And if it still appears too complicated a style for your perception
(or liking) you can also keep the 'for' loop just iterating over the
'monthIdx' and put the exit condition explicitly in the controlled
block with a 'break' if you prefer that.
for (monthIdx = 0; monthIdx < 12; monthIdx++)
if (yearDay < yearDays[leapYear][monthIdx])
break;
Both presented forms are IMO much better structured (and most easily
recognizable) than your code following here...
>
> monthIdx = 0;
> while (monthIdx < 12 && yearDay >= yearDays[leapYear][monthIdx])
> monthIdx++;
>
> Now at least I can see the condition! I'm sorry, but if prefer the
> original, then I don't want to have to debug or maintain your code.
(Above "the original" was the 'for' loop.)
> [...]
>
> I just don't get the love. Or maybe, nobody here (perhaps apart from
> Keith) is willing to admit that there's anything wrong with 'for'.
You don't like it. Fine. (I don't like a lot about "C".) Who cares?
Janis
> [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-20 15:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <87ldruv65j.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #392741 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> Actually here's a example from sqlite3.c:
>
> for(p=sqliteHashFirst(&pSchema->trigHash); p; p=sqliteHashNext(p)){
> sqlite3DeleteTrigger(db, (Trigger*)sqliteHashData(p));
> }
>
> And this is how you might be forced to write it instead:
>
> p=sqliteHashFirst(&pSchema->trigHash);
> while (p) {
> sqlite3DeleteTrigger(db, (Trigger*)sqliteHashData(p));
> p=sqliteHashNext(p);
> }
>
> Yes, it's spread over two more lines, but so what? It's much clearer:
> the initialisation is done once and then it's out of the way. Setting
> p to the next value is now physically written after the body.
[...]
I understand and completely accept that you find the while loop
clearer, and I have no interest in changing your mind.
I find the for loop clearer. I won't speak for anyone else, but I
suspect a lot of C programmers would also find the for loop clearer.
I don't believe you've ever acknowledged that.
--
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 | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-20 23:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vu3ve9$21pgn$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #392762 |
In article <87ldruv65j.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>,
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>I understand and completely accept that you find the while loop
>clearer, and I have no interest in changing your mind.
>
>I find the for loop clearer. I won't speak for anyone else, but I
>suspect a lot of C programmers would also find the for loop clearer.
I'm with Bart on this one. I think "for" loops that aren't simple
iterations (i.e., do this thing 10 times), are harder to understand than
the equivalent "while" loop. I.e., this:
p = someComplexFunctionCall(this,that,the,other,thing);
while (p) {
do stuff;
p = getNewValue(p);
}
is a lot easier to understand at first glance than the equivalent:
for (p = someComplexFunctionCall(this,that,the,other,thing); p; p = getNewValue(p))
do stuff;
But, having said that, I'll always write the "for" version, because I like
writing compact (some would say "cryptic") code. Job security, and all that...
--
Meatball Ron wants to replace the phrase "climate change" with the phrase
"energy dominance" in policy discussions.
Yeah, like that makes a lot of sense...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 13:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vu5ig6$3catv$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #392741 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> I don't know why people think that cramming as much code as possible
> into for(...) is a good style of coding. Either into one over-long line,
> or spilling over multiple lines; both should fail a code review.
>
> Actually here's a example from sqlite3.c:
>
> for(p=sqliteHashFirst(&pSchema->trigHash); p; p=sqliteHashNext(p)){
> sqlite3DeleteTrigger(db, (Trigger*)sqliteHashData(p));
> }
>
> And this is how you might be forced to write it instead:
>
> p=sqliteHashFirst(&pSchema->trigHash);
> while (p) {
> sqlite3DeleteTrigger(db, (Trigger*)sqliteHashData(p));
> p=sqliteHashNext(p);
> }
>
> Yes, it's spread over two more lines, but so what? It's much clearer:
> the initialisation is done once and then it's out of the way. Setting p
> to the next value is now physically written after the body.
Apparently you do not get why sqlite3.c version is better.
In short, this is separation of concerns. The 'for' construct
is responsible for iteration. Body of 'for' loop is responsible
for computation. You may replace body by empty instruction,
so there are no computation but the loop still correctly goes
over the same sequence. Or you may add instructions to perform
more computation. 'while' version mixes computation with
stepping to the next element. Since in 'for' version all parts
dealing with iteration are together it is easy to check that
they are correct. With 'while' version probablity of forgeting
to step to next element is higher.
FYI: I do not remember making error in a simple 'for' loop.
I do remember cases when I had to use 'while' for iteration
(in non-C languages) and stepping was wrong/missing. So
for me simple loops (your 98% of cases) are not an issue.
The issue are remaining cases, and for them C 'for' works
better.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 16:36 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vu5ol1$2h3r8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392777 |
On 21/04/2025 14:51, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't know why people think that cramming as much code as possible
>> into for(...) is a good style of coding. Either into one over-long line,
>> or spilling over multiple lines; both should fail a code review.
>>
>> Actually here's a example from sqlite3.c:
>>
>> for(p=sqliteHashFirst(&pSchema->trigHash); p; p=sqliteHashNext(p)){
>> sqlite3DeleteTrigger(db, (Trigger*)sqliteHashData(p));
>> }
>>
>> And this is how you might be forced to write it instead:
>>
>> p=sqliteHashFirst(&pSchema->trigHash);
>> while (p) {
>> sqlite3DeleteTrigger(db, (Trigger*)sqliteHashData(p));
>> p=sqliteHashNext(p);
>> }
>>
>> Yes, it's spread over two more lines, but so what? It's much clearer:
>> the initialisation is done once and then it's out of the way. Setting p
>> to the next value is now physically written after the body.
>
> Apparently you do not get why sqlite3.c version is better.
> In short, this is separation of concerns. The 'for' construct
> is responsible for iteration. Body of 'for' loop is responsible
> for computation. You may replace body by empty instruction,
> so there are no computation but the loop still correctly goes
> over the same sequence. Or you may add instructions to perform
> more computation. 'while' version mixes computation with
> stepping to the next element. Since in 'for' version all parts
> dealing with iteration are together it is easy to check that
> they are correct. With 'while' version probablity of forgeting
> to step to next element is higher.
You have to analyse it first. The kind of loop this expresses is:
p = startvalue()
while (p) {
<body>
p = nextvalue()
}
Notice how I chose to express it: it reflects how I would describe it in
English:
* Set P to Start Value
* While P isn't Null:
* Execute the body
* Set P to Next Value
So, how would /you/ describe it in English? (Or in any language if like,
as the ordering is more important.)
>In short, this is separation of concerns.
You seem be picking and choosing which concerns are in need of separation!
The example is this: for(A; B; C) D
You are saying that D must be separate from A B C, but specifically from C.
I'm asking, why shouldn't A B C also be separate from each other?
Especially A, which is only executed once, after which it's no longer
part of the loop.
As C works now, the alternative might be: A; while (B) { D; C;}.
I wouldn't have minded a syntax like: A; while (B; C) {D} but C doesn't
have that. In that case, the 'while' version still wins over 'for' IMO.
> FYI: I do not remember making error in a simple 'for' loop.
> I do remember cases when I had to use 'while' for iteration
> (in non-C languages) and stepping was wrong/missing. So
> for me simple loops (your 98% of cases) are not an issue.
> The issue are remaining cases, and for them C 'for' works
> better.
That's bizarre. It is exactly like saying you don't have a problem with
writing (or forgetting to write) 'break' in 99% of switch-case blocks,
because in those 1% of cases where you do want fallthroughit is 'automatic'.
I expect you also either think that:
for (ch = 0; ch <= 255; ++ch)
is better than: 'do ch = 0, 255', or is much more tolerant of it than I am.
Here's how that C for-loop works, in English:
* Set ch to 0
* While c is less than or equal to 255: (typo left in!)
* Execute the body
* Set ch to ch + 1
Here is how that compact version works, in English:
* For ch having the values 0 to 255 inclusive:
* Execute the body
However I see that nobody in this group has any objective interest in
language ergonomics and aesthetics. They more interested in defending
'their' language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-21 21:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vu6bvn$3dsrl$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #392778 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 21/04/2025 14:51, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't know why people think that cramming as much code as possible
>>> into for(...) is a good style of coding. Either into one over-long line,
>>> or spilling over multiple lines; both should fail a code review.
>>>
>>> Actually here's a example from sqlite3.c:
>>>
>>> for(p=sqliteHashFirst(&pSchema->trigHash); p; p=sqliteHashNext(p)){
>>> sqlite3DeleteTrigger(db, (Trigger*)sqliteHashData(p));
>>> }
>>>
>>> And this is how you might be forced to write it instead:
>>>
>>> p=sqliteHashFirst(&pSchema->trigHash);
>>> while (p) {
>>> sqlite3DeleteTrigger(db, (Trigger*)sqliteHashData(p));
>>> p=sqliteHashNext(p);
>>> }
>>>
>>> Yes, it's spread over two more lines, but so what? It's much clearer:
>>> the initialisation is done once and then it's out of the way. Setting p
>>> to the next value is now physically written after the body.
>>
>> Apparently you do not get why sqlite3.c version is better.
>> In short, this is separation of concerns. The 'for' construct
>> is responsible for iteration. Body of 'for' loop is responsible
>> for computation. You may replace body by empty instruction,
>> so there are no computation but the loop still correctly goes
>> over the same sequence. Or you may add instructions to perform
>> more computation. 'while' version mixes computation with
>> stepping to the next element. Since in 'for' version all parts
>> dealing with iteration are together it is easy to check that
>> they are correct. With 'while' version probablity of forgeting
>> to step to next element is higher.
>
> You have to analyse it first. The kind of loop this expresses is:
>
> p = startvalue()
>
> while (p) {
> <body>
> p = nextvalue()
> }
>
> Notice how I chose to express it: it reflects how I would describe it in
> English:
>
> * Set P to Start Value
> * While P isn't Null:
> * Execute the body
> * Set P to Next Value
>
> So, how would /you/ describe it in English? (Or in any language if like,
> as the ordering is more important.)
I would describe original sqlite3.c loop as "iteration over elements
of hash table". That assumes that Sqlite folks choose sensible
names. This is higher level view than you apparently have.
BTW: I do not know how Sqlite folks implemented 'sqliteHashNext',
but I would expect semi-random order of elements. What matters
is that iteration goes over all elements in the hash table.
BTW2: When looking at 'for' loop you are supposed to see pattern,
without need to track all steps.
>>In short, this is separation of concerns.
>
> You seem be picking and choosing which concerns are in need of separation!
Yes.
> The example is this: for(A; B; C) D
>
> You are saying that D must be separate from A B C, but specifically from C.
>
> I'm asking, why shouldn't A B C also be separate from each other?
The intent of 'for' is to iterate over some collection. Each of
A, B, C is needed to know the collection.
> Especially A, which is only executed once, after which it's no longer
> part of the loop.
Without A you do not know range of iteration. Putting A just before
'while' loop is not too bad, as it is still pretty close to the
loop and B. But when using 'while' C potentially could be quite
far from A and B.
> As C works now, the alternative might be: A; while (B) { D; C;}.
>
> I wouldn't have minded a syntax like: A; while (B; C) {D} but C doesn't
> have that. In that case, the 'while' version still wins over 'for' IMO.
>
>
>> FYI: I do not remember making error in a simple 'for' loop.
>> I do remember cases when I had to use 'while' for iteration
>> (in non-C languages) and stepping was wrong/missing. So
>> for me simple loops (your 98% of cases) are not an issue.
>
>> The issue are remaining cases, and for them C 'for' works
>> better.
>
> That's bizarre. It is exactly like saying you don't have a problem with
> writing (or forgetting to write) 'break' in 99% of switch-case blocks,
> because in those 1% of cases where you do want fallthroughit is 'automatic'.
No, this subtly different. I do not have problem with writing 'break',
as it is mandatory in vast majority of C loops. You may think about
it as mandatory sacrifice to gods of C. When you forget it you will
be punished and after punishment you will remember to put it. Yes,
it is silly but there is a lot of mandatory sillines in real life,
one just adapts and goes on. The difference compared to 'for' is
that there are easy alternatives to falltrough by default.
> I expect you also either think that:
>
> for (ch = 0; ch <= 255; ++ch)
>
> is better than: 'do ch = 0, 255', or is much more tolerant of it than I am.
In 1975 C version was better: it allowed flexible loops using very
simple compiler. If you do not mind some compiler complexity you
can do better (I consider 'do ch = 0, 255' to be rather bad, IMO
something like 'for ch in 0..255' or 'for ch := 0 to 255' is better).
But IMO main reason that C won competition for system language was
that C compiler could be quite simple while generating efficient
code and allowing powerful constructs.
IMO there are now good reasons to create a different system
language. But C loops are tiny part of issues and alone (or
even combined with other issues that you mentioned like 'break'-s
in 'switch'-es and declaration syntax) not enough.
> Here's how that C for-loop works, in English:
>
> * Set ch to 0
> * While c is less than or equal to 255: (typo left in!)
> * Execute the body
> * Set ch to ch + 1
>
> Here is how that compact version works, in English:
>
> * For ch having the values 0 to 255 inclusive:
> * Execute the body
>
> However I see that nobody in this group has any objective interest in
> language ergonomics and aesthetics. They more interested in defending
> 'their' language.
Note that this is C group. If you find new way of writing C code
which is more convenient and nicer than existing ways, then people
here may be interested. Or if you propose a compatible extention.
But saying that C is bad rarely brings someting new, people here
know most of C warts and have ways to cope with them. If they
thought that some other language is really better they would use
it instead of C. FYI, I do probably majority of my coding in
different languages. However, "better" includes factors as
availability of optimizing compilers and libraries. And
availabiity of skill: language which has interesting features
that you do not understand is not good for you.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 23 of 35 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23] 24 25 … 35 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web