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 9 of 35 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 35 Next page →
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-12 17:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20250412101325.877@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #392446 |
On 2025-04-12, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 12/04/2025 14:43, David Brown wrote:
>> On 12/04/2025 03:27, bart wrote:
>
>>> C type syntax is famous for being difficult and confusing; I think
>>> most will agree about that. Even the creators said so.
>>
>> I disagree with that claim. I think it is probably fair to say that
>> advanced, complicated and multi-layer types are difficult in any
>> programming language.
>
> But a type that is a simple linear chain should be straightforward, and
> usually is, just not in C. That was illustrated here:
>
> array of 10 pointer to function taking int and returning int
> 1 2 3 4 5 6
You make a good point in that since the type constructing operators are
unary (prefix or postfix), the derivation chain is linear and could be
linearized, without the need for any precedence parentheses.
It follows the use, though.
The function and array derivations are postfix. Only the pointer
derivation is prefix.
If we imagine a C with postfix pointer dereferencing, say using ^
(setting aside the xor meaning for a moment), like:
a[i]^(arg); // index into a at i, dereference, call with arg.
Then the declarator would be similar under declaration-follows-use:
int a[10]^(int); // same as int (*a[10])(int);
the name would always be on the left, just after the declaration
specifiers, and all the derivation would be postfix.
Then, suppose if you didn't want an array of pointers, but
a pointer to an array, you would not add, remove or rearrange
precedence parentheses. You would just reorder the postfixes.
int a^[10](int) // same as int (*a)[10](int);
// Note: invalid! For syntactic discussion only!
This is a type not supported in C: array of functions. I'm just using
it for syntax comparisons to illustrate that if all the type derviations
are postfix, then precedence parentheses serve no purpose and we don't
entertain them.
You do have a point, but the fact that C declarations follow C
expressions (even with the way suboptimal dereferencing is on the left)
is a good thing. The consistency makes it easy to learn declarations,
and also to visually check code for sanity: do declarations match uses.
"Declaration follows use" might be even better with a nicer
expression grammar in the area of arrays and pointers, but we don't
have that.
This (*a[10])(int) clump may seem difficult, but a C programmer cannot
get around learning that same shape in the context of expressions,
where it could occur like this (*a[i])(x + 1). If you grok this,
you're most of the way toward grokking the declarator.
There are some subtleties like expressions giving you various shortcuts.
Arrays can be used as if they were pointers and vice-versa, and
function pointers can be called without explicit dereferencing.
I believe those additional rules in expressions that are not found
in type derivation cause some C programmers to have difficulties
with nested declarations. It's precisely because they cause deviations
from "declaration follow use". The use of a function pointer is rarely
observed as (*ptr)(arg) because ptr(arg) works, but the declarator
must still be (*ptr)(paramtype) as if ptr(arg) didn't exist.
If there were no deviations in "declaration follows use", such that
calling a function pointer taken from an array had to be written
(*a[i])(arg), then new C programmers would struggle less with
declarations. Or should we say, struggle less with declarations of
entities that they already know how to use.
>> I have said multiple times that if I were to design a new programming
>> language, its syntax would differ significantly from C's.
>
> But it would be a toy unless you could get it adopted by lots of people.
>
> By your standards, even a DSL that you create for use in your
> professional work would be a toy.
If the DSL reinvents a lot of risky wheels, like doing everything
from scratch, that could be the case. It takes some years to mature
something out of non-toy status at that level.
A DSL that just transliterates some notation to a stable, mature
language, according to a small body of rules, easily inherits
the non-toy status from the platform it sits on.
"Toy" is a not a well-defined concept, which mainly seems function
as "not suitable for some unspecified purposes that I have in mind".
People who use "toy" tend to move their secret goalposts.
There are ways that a DSL could be unsuitable for some of the purposes
it is supposedly designed for, even if it sits on a stable platform;
then some people trying that DSL in earnest might abandon it
and call it a toy.
--
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 | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-13 00:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vterr3$1hme6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392447 |
On 12/04/2025 18:40, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-04-12, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On 12/04/2025 14:43, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 12/04/2025 03:27, bart wrote:
>>
>>>> C type syntax is famous for being difficult and confusing; I think
>>>> most will agree about that. Even the creators said so.
>>>
>>> I disagree with that claim. I think it is probably fair to say that
>>> advanced, complicated and multi-layer types are difficult in any
>>> programming language.
>>
>> But a type that is a simple linear chain should be straightforward, and
>> usually is, just not in C. That was illustrated here:
>>
>> array of 10 pointer to function taking int and returning int
>> 1 2 3 4 5 6
>
> You make a good point in that since the type constructing operators are
> unary (prefix or postfix), the derivation chain is linear and could be
> linearized, without the need for any precedence parentheses.
>
> It follows the use, though.
You still seem keen on making typespec syntax somehow match expression
syntax. I think that's a mistake. Type syntax is not executed, not at
this level of language.
> The function and array derivations are postfix. Only the pointer
> derivation is prefix.
>
> If we imagine a C with postfix pointer dereferencing, say using ^
> (setting aside the xor meaning for a moment), like:
>
> a[i]^(arg); // index into a at i, dereference, call with arg.
> Then the declarator would be similar under declaration-follows-use:
> int a[10]^(int); // same as int (*a[10])(int);
Your example /still/ has type syntax that looks like an expression; they
are easy to confuse. You WANT a type syntax that is more distinct.
> Then, suppose if you didn't want an array of pointers, but
> a pointer to an array, you would not add, remove or rearrange
> precedence parentheses. You would just reorder the postfixes.
> int a^[10](int) // same as int (*a)[10](int);
> // Note: invalid! For syntactic discussion only!
>
> This is a type not supported in C: array of functions.
Yes, you'd move 'pointer to' symbol along. Or just add a new one. With
postfix deref, you don't need to bother with round brackets (which was
always a bizarre idea to me; normally brackets are used around parameter
lists only.
> You do have a point, but the fact that C declarations follow C
> expressions (even with the way suboptimal dereferencing is on the left)
> is a good thing. The consistency makes it easy to learn declarations,
> and also to visually check code for sanity: do declarations match uses.
I've tried for decades but still find them impossible without external
help. Obviously for me it doesn't work.
But, what the hell is there are learn anyway?! Typespecs are built out
of primitive types, arrays, pointers and function signatures.
If your type is a pointer to array of pointer to T, then you just write
a pointer to array of T! That is:
*[]*T X
in my LTR syntax from earlier today. Then access to the T element is
with X*[i]*.
Here the ordering of those ops (deref, index, deref) does match the
ordering of the corresponding type elements, but I'm not making a big
deal out of that, to the extent that the syntax must match exactly. It
won't do since X is on the opposite end for a start.
In my real language, the type is:
ref[]ref T X
and the term is X[i]^. (The ^ between X and [ can be implicit.)
Notice that while the ordering is similar, there is no attempt to match
syntax. It is not necessary. I can't mistake one for the other, either.
> If the DSL reinvents a lot of risky wheels, like doing everything
> from scratch, that could be the case. It takes some years to mature
> something out of non-toy status at that level.
My point was that a DSL is just another piece of custom software. But
such software in general is not a toy because it has not been
'battle-tested'. It will have the usual testing processes so that it
meets its specs for client's application.
My language was just another tool that worked remarkably well. It was
not a general language intended for a mass market.
But DB refuses to acknowledge any ideas that come out of it and will
always insist that C is better. (I guess he would lend more credence to
some hypothetical feature that has not been implemented and has never
been proved.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-13 21:40 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20250413214046.0000530f@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #392447 |
On Sat, 12 Apr 2025 17:40:25 -0000 (UTC) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote: > On 2025-04-12, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > > On 12/04/2025 14:43, David Brown wrote: > >> On 12/04/2025 03:27, bart wrote: > > > >>> C type syntax is famous for being difficult and confusing; I > >>> think most will agree about that. Even the creators said so. > >> > >> I disagree with that claim. I think it is probably fair to say > >> that advanced, complicated and multi-layer types are difficult in > >> any programming language. > > > > But a type that is a simple linear chain should be straightforward, > > and usually is, just not in C. That was illustrated here: > > > > array of 10 pointer to function taking int and returning int > > 1 2 3 4 5 6 > > You make a good point in that since the type constructing operators > are unary (prefix or postfix), the derivation chain is linear and > could be linearized, without the need for any precedence parentheses. > > It follows the use, though. > The funny thing is that in original C prefix form of [] indexing was equivalent to the postfix form. May be, it still is in C23, I didn't try to look in the docs or test. However in type declarations one always had to use only postfix form.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-13 20:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20250413130116.546@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #392468 |
On 2025-04-13, Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: > The funny thing is that in original C prefix form of [] indexing was > equivalent to the postfix form. May be, it still is in C23, I didn't > try to look in the docs or test. Are you thinking of a[i] being *(a + i) being i[a] due to commutativity? That's really not a useful feature. Actually right down to a + i being commutative when a is a pointer. It would be fine if only the <pointer> + <integer> combination were allowed. -- 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 | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-14 00:30 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20250414003003.00004151@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #392473 |
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 20:08:52 -0000 (UTC) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote: > On 2025-04-13, Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: > > The funny thing is that in original C prefix form of [] indexing was > > equivalent to the postfix form. May be, it still is in C23, I > > didn't try to look in the docs or test. > > Are you thinking of a[i] being *(a + i) being i[a] due to > commutativity? > My impression rfrom old books was that indexing as [i]arr was (is ?) also legal. > That's really not a useful feature. Actually right down to a + i being > commutative when a is a pointer. It would be fine if only the > <pointer> + <integer> combination were allowed. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-13 21:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vthn3t$26ud$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392474 |
On 4/13/25 17:30, Michael S wrote: ... > My impression rfrom old books was that indexing as [i]arr was (is ?) > also legal. If it had ever been legal, I would have expected it to be mentioned in K&R 1st edition, in the section where it describes obsolete syntax that used to be valid. It isn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-13 18:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87h62r4jdu.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #392483 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> On 4/13/25 17:30, Michael S wrote:
> ...
>> My impression rfrom old books was that indexing as [i]arr was (is ?)
>> also legal.
>
> If it had ever been legal, I would have expected it to be mentioned in
> K&R 1st edition, in the section where it describes obsolete syntax that
> used to be valid. It isn't.
It isn't mentioned there because the syntax isn't obsolete.
It's mentioned in K&R1 Appendix A section 14.3, page 210:
By definition, the subscript operator [] is interpreted in such a
way that E1 [E2] is identical to *((E1)+(E2)). Because of the
conversion rules which apply to +, if E1 is an array and E2 an
integer, then E1 [E2] refers to the E2-th member of E1. Therefore,
despite its asymmetric appearance, subscripting is a commutative
operation.
This is still true in all editions up to and including C23.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-13 22:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vthtii$bdf3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392485 |
On 4/13/25 21:33, Keith Thompson wrote: > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: >> On 4/13/25 17:30, Michael S wrote: >> ... >>> My impression rfrom old books was that indexing as [i]arr was (is ?) Note: [i]arr >>> also legal. >> >> If it had ever been legal, I would have expected it to be mentioned in >> K&R 1st edition, in the section where it describes obsolete syntax that >> used to be valid. It isn't. > > It isn't mentioned there because the syntax isn't obsolete. > > It's mentioned in K&R1 Appendix A section 14.3, page 210: > > By definition, the subscript operator [] is interpreted in such a > way that E1 [E2] is identical to *((E1)+(E2)). Because of the > conversion rules which apply to +, if E1 is an array and E2 an > integer, then E1 [E2] refers to the E2-th member of E1. Therefore, > despite its asymmetric appearance, subscripting is a commutative > operation. > > This is still true in all editions up to and including C23. He's not talking about E2[E1]. He's talking about [E2]E1.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-13 20:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87cydf4e5d.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #392486 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> On 4/13/25 21:33, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>> On 4/13/25 17:30, Michael S wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> My impression rfrom old books was that indexing as [i]arr was (is ?)
>
> Note: [i]arr
[...]
> He's not talking about E2[E1]. He's talking about [E2]E1.
D'oh, I missed that. Apparently I saw what I was expecting to see.
I don't recall [i]arr (or [arr]i) being valid in any version of C
or any of its predecessors -- or any other language, for that matter.
--
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 | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-13 14:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87lds3g1vw.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #392473 |
Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:
> On 2025-04-13, Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The funny thing is that in original C prefix form of [] indexing was
>> equivalent to the postfix form. May be, it still is in C23, I didn't
>> try to look in the docs or test.
>
> Are you thinking of a[i] being *(a + i) being i[a] due to commutativity?
>
> That's really not a useful feature. Actually right down to a + i being
> commutative when a is a pointer. It would be fine if only the
> <pointer> + <integer> combination were allowed.
Agreed. The feature goes back to B, which was largely untyped, and
there wasn't a strong distinction between integers and pointers. An
expression like 5[6] would refer to a memory location, and depending
on the system it might even work.
The transition from B to C was an opportunity to restrict the ordering
of the operands, but it wasn't taken.
--
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 | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-13 21:58 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <vthmkg$3v7ck$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392477 |
Em 4/13/2025 6:58 PM, Keith Thompson escreveu: > Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes: >> On 2025-04-13, Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> The funny thing is that in original C prefix form of [] indexing was >>> equivalent to the postfix form. May be, it still is in C23, I didn't >>> try to look in the docs or test. >> >> Are you thinking of a[i] being *(a + i) being i[a] due to commutativity? >> >> That's really not a useful feature. Actually right down to a + i being >> commutative when a is a pointer. It would be fine if only the >> <pointer> + <integer> combination were allowed. > > Agreed. The feature goes back to B, which was largely untyped, and > there wasn't a strong distinction between integers and pointers. An > expression like 5[6] would refer to a memory location, and depending > on the system it might even work. > > The transition from B to C was an opportunity to restrict the ordering > of the operands, but it wasn't taken. > Proposal for c2y https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3517.htm " A postfix expression followed by an expression in square brackets [ ] is a subscripted designation of an element of an array. The use of this operator with the first operand of integer type **is an obsolescent feature.**" and make M[-1] a constrain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-13 18:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87lds34jvh.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #392481 |
Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> writes:
> Em 4/13/2025 6:58 PM, Keith Thompson escreveu:
>> Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:
>>> On 2025-04-13, Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> The funny thing is that in original C prefix form of [] indexing was
>>>> equivalent to the postfix form. May be, it still is in C23, I didn't
>>>> try to look in the docs or test.
>>>
>>> Are you thinking of a[i] being *(a + i) being i[a] due to commutativity?
>>>
>>> That's really not a useful feature. Actually right down to a + i being
>>> commutative when a is a pointer. It would be fine if only the
>>> <pointer> + <integer> combination were allowed.
>> Agreed. The feature goes back to B, which was largely untyped, and
>> there wasn't a strong distinction between integers and pointers. An
>> expression like 5[6] would refer to a memory location, and depending
>> on the system it might even work.
>> The transition from B to C was an opportunity to restrict the
>> ordering
>> of the operands, but it wasn't taken.
>
> Proposal for c2y
> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3517.htm
>
> " A postfix expression followed by an expression in square brackets [
> ] is a subscripted designation of an element of an array. The use of
> this operator with the first operand of integer type **is an
> obsolescent feature.**"
>
> and make M[-1] a constrain
In the proposal, a negative index is a constraint violation only if it's
an integer constant expression, and only if the prefix is the name of an
array object. ptr[-1] is still valid, for example:
int arr[10];
int *ptr = arr+1;
ptr[-1];
You probably meant to say this; your post appears to have been cut off.
But yes, I'm glad to see swapping the operands being made obsolescent.
--
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 | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-13 14:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87plhfg25f.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #392468 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
[...]
> The funny thing is that in original C prefix form of [] indexing was
> equivalent to the postfix form. May be, it still is in C23, I didn't
> try to look in the docs or test.
> However in type declarations one always had to use only postfix form.
If you're referring to the equvalence of a[i] and i[a], that's still
there in C23. I wouldn't call either of them "prefix form".
The standard classifies indexing as a postfix operator. You can think
of it as postfix, where a is the operand and [i] is the operator, or as
an operator that takes two operands and uses a weird syntax that's not
really either prefix, postfix, or binary:
operand1 '[' operand2 ']'
But you make an interesting point: the imperfect mapping of expressions
to declarations does not include the case where the prefix of [] is an
integer. (And I definitely don't have a problem with 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 | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-13 20:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vthm4q$26ud$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392468 |
On 4/13/25 14:40, Michael S wrote: > On Sat, 12 Apr 2025 17:40:25 -0000 (UTC) ... > The funny thing is that in original C prefix form of [] indexing was > equivalent to the postfix form. May be, it still is in C23, I didn't > try to look in the docs or test. You mean the fact that array[5] and 5[array] have exactly the same meaning? That's still there. It follows from the fact that E1[E2] is defined as equivalent to *(E1+E2), and from the fact that E1+E2 means the same as E2+E1, when one of them is a pointer, and the other is a integer. > However in type declarations one always had to use only postfix form. The "declaration follows use" concept normally picks only one of the ways in which a declarator can be used, as the one that is mirrored by the declaration syntax.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-12 19:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vteaoe$115si$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392446 |
On 12/04/2025 17:52, bart wrote: > With LTR syntax, you can create arbitrarily complex chains, and you will > always now exactly what they mean, and which * is which. Modifying them > is trivial: > > C LTR style > int *(*A)[] *[]*[]int A # ptr to array of ptr to int The comment here doesn't match the LTR typespec; there's an 'array of' missing from the comment. I suspect the C matches the comment (since I had to enter the equivalent into CDECL to get the C typespec!). What's under LTR is the type I wanted, so the correct version is: C LTR int (*(*A)[])[] *[]*[]int A # ptr to array of ptr array of int The first * in LTR I think corresponds to the second * in the C version.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-12 09:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vtdrkr$k54q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392425 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 12/04/2025 00:59, Keith Thompson wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> On 11/04/2025 22:36, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> [...] >>>>> Rubbish. Everyone finds C declaration syntax a nightmare. >>>> Rubbish. I find C declaration syntax annoying, not a "nightmare". >>> >>> Annoying would be having to get letter case or punctuation just right. >> [...] >>> So, yeah, a 'nightmare' is more apt than 'annoying'. >> Bart, bart, bart. > >> You made a false statement about how *everyone* feels about >> C's declaration syntax. > > So what would be a true statement? That everyone finds it at least > midly annoying? That there's a wide variety of opinions on the matter, just as there is on just about every issue. The fact that C is one of the most widely used languages should clue you in to the fact that large numbers of people find it far less troublesome than you do, even if you can't imagine why anyone would be insane enough to disagree with you on this matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-12 15:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vtdsh8$jddk$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392440 |
On 12/04/2025 14:59, James Kuyper wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 12/04/2025 00:59, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> On 11/04/2025 22:36, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>>> [...] >>>>>> Rubbish. Everyone finds C declaration syntax a nightmare. >>>>> Rubbish. I find C declaration syntax annoying, not a "nightmare". >>>> >>>> Annoying would be having to get letter case or punctuation just right. >>> [...] >>>> So, yeah, a 'nightmare' is more apt than 'annoying'. >>> Bart, bart, bart. >> >>> You made a false statement about how *everyone* feels about >>> C's declaration syntax. >> >> So what would be a true statement? That everyone finds it at least >> midly annoying? > > That there's a wide variety of opinions on the matter, just as there is > on just about every issue. The fact that C is one of the most widely > used languages should clue you in to the fact that large numbers of > people find it far less troublesome than you do, That says little about the quality of the language. It says rather more about the lack of choice regarding systems languages at this level, especially in previous decades, and also about it being foisted on people by those who created Unix. It's not so easy on that OS to prise apart OS, C language, C compiler, C headers and C libraries. There are a considerable number of design flaws in the language, some absolute howlers; that the language is also successful, for whatever reasons, doesn't suddenly make it a paragon of good design. A lot of those flaws make it more unsafe and more error prone than is needed. It also means a huge effort, probably several magnitudes more than would have been needed to just fix the language, has gone into tooling to help get around many of its shortcomings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-12 06:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vtcqf6$3j95s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392423 |
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> >>> Rubbish. Everyone finds C declaration syntax a nightmare. There's people (also a couple regulars in this Usenet group) that are constructing sentences of various generalizing forms (like yours, and also with other forms and contents; like concerning tools, people). I think it should be unnecessary to say that such sentences are often just projections, or wishful thinking, or unnecessary rhetoric moves, rarely backed up by facts, and typically also just not true (at least in their typical absolute and generalized form). > On 11/04/2025 22:36, Keith Thompson wrote: >> >> Rubbish. I find C declaration syntax annoying, not a "nightmare". There's so many attributes! I (for example) think they're (in some respects) "badly designed". On 12.04.2025 01:13, bart wrote: > > Annoying would be having to get letter case or punctuation just right. Are you now _defining_ what "annoying" *commonly* means? Or what it *has to* mean [in your opinion]? Please try to decouple your personal sight from the clear facts and formulate your statements appropriately. - Unless your intention is to just inflict communication disruptions. > > But C typepecs can go far beyond it. I can just about do arrays of > pointers, or pointers to arrays. Anything more complicated is pretty > much trial and error. I understand you have problems with it. And I'm not astonished... > > In an example in my post which I then deleted (DB will just ignore > examples), I wanted to create an array of 10 pointers to functions that > take an int and return an int. Because of "C"'s somewhat convoluted (IMO "bad") syntax it might help you to make use of 'typedef's to incrementally construct your types! - That's at least what I did when I wanted to create better legible "C" code in cases of overly complex type structures. - It's also a general method to handle complexity. > > I started with something like this that I recalled from memory > (otherwise it would be even more wrong): > > int (*A)[10](int); > > but CDECL said it was something different. I tried one or two more > combinations before I gave up and asked CDECL to tell me the type from > the English. > > C type syntax is just not fit for purpose. Reality shows that it *is* (de facto) "fit for purpose". (Probably not yours. - I'm still wondering why you act in a "C" newsgroup.) > This is not how a language is > meant to work, and this is not supposed to be the hard part of a > language! Syntax should be the easy bit. I agree that language designers can do a much better job. (There's quite some examples for languages with an IMO "better" syntax.) > > This is that English spec (with the significant bits numbered): > > array 10 pointer to func take int return int My English might not be good enough, but in my book this is not an English sentence and for me not (not much) easier to understand than the "C" syntax below; the latter can at least (with its formality!) be _understood_ by an experienced "C" programmer as a well defined code pattern. Guessing: An array with 10 elements that are pointers to functions that take an 'int' parameter and return an 'int' value? > 1 2 3 4 5 6 > > Here is what CDECL came up with: > > int (*A[10])(int); > 6 3 1 2 4 5 (Not sure which bit is the '4') (This opening parenthesis syntactically indicates the function, as also indicated by the numberings above. - Or so I'd think. - No?) > > The numbers below show the correspondence with the English. You can see > it's all over the place. This is how I'd write it in another actual > language syntax: > > [10]ref func(int)int A > 1 2 3 4 5 6 And what should that mean? - You know, since I haven't identified your "English sentence" as a clearly understandable English sentence I'm lost here, since I don't know that (your?) language. - For the "C" case I could at least read the "C" specs (in case I got lost). Assumed that my guess above was correct that's quite equivalent to the Algol 68 form [10] REF PROC (INT) INT a but in Algol 68 you'd probably rather use it without the unnecessary "pointer"/reference just as in [10] PROC (INT) INT a which - as you seem to like clearness - is even simpler! > > Notice that that numbering here exactly corresponds to the English. THIS > is how easy it should be. I could write this as fast as I can type. > > Further, the variable name is well out of it. In my syntax, any names go > on the right; names on the left is also popular. But no language other > than C and C++ has names IN THE MIDDLE. Yes, as said, this mixing I also think to have been bad idea. - But the "C" language was originating in a culture where people seem to think that mixing date components (like "April 12th 2025") is also natural[*] or at least an appropriate usable representation. :-) [*] I have an idea how it came to that format, but that's speculation. > > So, yeah, a 'nightmare' is more apt than 'annoying'. Again, ITYM "for you". - Yes, we know that. Use type compositions (in case you are actually programming in "C")! Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-12 12:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vtdh4q$b3kt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392428 |
On 12/04/2025 05:33, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Rubbish. Everyone finds C declaration syntax a nightmare.
> Because of "C"'s somewhat convoluted (IMO "bad") syntax it might
> help you to make use of 'typedef's to incrementally construct your
> types!
This is a third kind of workround. All of them should be unnecessary.
Unless the type really is complicated and needs to be decomposed anyway,
whatever the syntax.
>> C type syntax is just not fit for purpose.
>
> Reality shows that it *is* (de facto) "fit for purpose". (Probably
> not yours. - I'm still wondering why you act in a "C" newsgroup.)
I 100% agree with what C is capable of as a systems language. The level
of its type system, its size, its scope, its flexibility (to an extent)
But I also 100% hate its syntax and various other bits and pieces. (OK,
about 80% then.)
So I've been avoiding using it for many decades. First because it wasn't
practical (acquiring or using it). Then because I wanted to use it but
it was just too dreadful. And later I couldn't avoid it because it comes
up in every API for every library, or the library comes as C source code.
And APIs use C type syntax. So, yeah, I am entitled to an opinion about it.
>
>> This is not how a language is
>> meant to work, and this is not supposed to be the hard part of a
>> language! Syntax should be the easy bit.
>
> I agree that language designers can do a much better job. (There's
> quite some examples for languages with an IMO "better" syntax.)
>
>>
>> This is that English spec (with the significant bits numbered):
>>
>> array 10 pointer to func take int return int
>
> My English might not be good enough, but in my book this is not an
> English sentence and for me not (not much)
I gave the full English description further up.
> Guessing: An array with 10 elements that are pointers to functions
> that take an 'int' parameter and return an 'int' value?
Very good. It's not a guess though is it? If you extract the essential
parts out, you get:
array 10 pointers functions take int return int
The same exercise with mine (both versions) yield:
array 10 pointers functions take int return int
array 10 pointer func take int return int
There's not much in it.
>> 1 2 3 4 5 6
>>
>> Here is what CDECL came up with:
>>
>> int (*A[10])(int);
>> 6 3 1 2 4 5 (Not sure which bit is the '4')
>
> (This opening parenthesis syntactically indicates the function, as
> also indicated by the numberings above. - Or so I'd think. - No?)
Not necessarily. This is a valid declaration in C:
int (A);
That opening parentheses is just noise. (I guess you just learned
something new about C today?)
>>
>> The numbers below show the correspondence with the English. You can see
>> it's all over the place. This is how I'd write it in another actual
>> language syntax:
>>
>> [10]ref func(int)int A
>> 1 2 3 4 5 6
>
> And what should that mean? - You know, since I haven't identified
> your "English sentence" as a clearly understandable English sentence
> I'm lost here, since I don't know that (your?) language. - For the
> "C" case I could at least read the "C" specs (in case I got lost).
A could of years ago I had a bit of fun with it so that my allowed this
syntax:
array [10] pointer to function (int) returning int A
Still have trouble with it? You shouldn't do since this is pretty much
what CDECL produces or can understand. I didn't keep this because such
syntax is too much.
> Assumed that my guess above was correct that's quite equivalent to
> the Algol 68 form
>
> [10] REF PROC (INT) INT a
So you do get it (maybe I should have read this far first). Yes, it
directly comes from Algol68.
But left-to-right type specifications must be common now everywhere.
> but in Algol 68 you'd probably rather use it without the unnecessary
> "pointer"/reference just as in
>
> [10] PROC (INT) INT a
>
> which - as you seem to like clearness - is even simpler!
This is not as clear; the intent is to have a reference to a function;
not an array of actual functions. For example:
[]ref func(int) int := (F, G, H)
It is initialised to functions F, G, H which are defined elsewhere.
Maybe in Algol68 you can have actual function definitions in that list.
But not in mine, which was created as a leaner, simpler and more
transparent systems language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-13 04:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vtf7fe$1qtpg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392432 |
On 12.04.2025 13:00, bart wrote:
> On 12/04/2025 05:33, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> [ 'typedef' composition/decomposition for complex declarations ]
>
> This is a third kind of workround. All of them should be unnecessary.
> Unless the type really is complicated and needs to be decomposed anyway,
> whatever the syntax.
Well, yes. If you have a somewhat [IMO] convoluted syntax then you
pick your language choices to address it and do the best out of it.
> [...]
>
> But I also 100% hate its syntax and various other bits and pieces. (OK,
> about 80% then.)
(I also don't like its syntax too much. I think I'm just complaining
less than you about that. BTW, I've got the impression that all the
shortcomings of "C" are well known by most regulars here; they just
handle these facts in discussions differently than you.)
> [...
>
> And APIs use C type syntax. So, yeah, I am entitled to an opinion about it.
That's fine. Although those repeated complaints also annoy me. (But
that's my problem, of course.)
> [...]
>
>> Guessing: An array with 10 elements that are pointers to functions
>> that take an 'int' parameter and return an 'int' value?
>>> [...]
>>
>> (This opening parenthesis syntactically indicates the function, as
>> also indicated by the numberings above. - Or so I'd think. - No?)
>
> Not necessarily. This is a valid declaration in C:
>
> int (A);
>
> That opening parentheses is just noise. (I guess you just learned
> something new about C today?)
Not really. - I was merely pointing out that the messages you posted
made sense to me; where I had the impression you were confused about
it.
>
>> Assumed that my guess above was correct that's quite equivalent to
>> the Algol 68 form
>>
>> [10] REF PROC (INT) INT a
>
> So you do get it (maybe I should have read this far first). Yes, it
> directly comes from Algol68.
>
> But left-to-right type specifications must be common now everywhere.
Not sure. A more regular syntax is at least something I appreciate a
lot. (That' why, maybe many months ago, I spoke here about Algol 68
as one the formally most consistent languages, and that I like it a
lot because of that.)
>
>> but in Algol 68 you'd probably rather use it without the unnecessary
>> "pointer"/reference just as in
>>
>> [10] PROC (INT) INT a
>>
>> which - as you seem to like clearness - is even simpler!
>
> This is not as clear; the intent is to have a reference to a function;
> not an array of actual functions. For example:
>
> []ref func(int) int := (F, G, H)
>
> It is initialised to functions F, G, H which are defined elsewhere.
In Algol 68 I can just write (without 'REF'), for example,
[10] PROC (INT) INT apfii;
PROC one_less = (INT i) INT : i-1;
PROC one_more = (INT i) INT : i+1;
apfii[2:3] := ( one_less, one_more );
We don't need "pointers" (or references) which don't contribute to the
clearness of the semantics for this purpose - 'REF's are used for other
things -, for the case here they'd rather introduce low-level mechanics
unnecessarily in the application. - Just saying. (I'm not intending to
complain in that respect about "C" or about "your language". I'm merely
reporting some simple facts about it.) - So the 'ref' necessity in your
language may look clear to you but for me it's just obscuring ballast.
> Maybe in Algol68 you can have actual function definitions in that list.
Yes. It makes no sense to unnecessarily expose low-level implementation
mechanics to the programmer. (I think Algol 68 does that quite well.)
> But not in mine, which was created as a leaner, simpler and more
> transparent systems language.
We obviously disagree about the "transparence". I prefer languages that
don't make me have to use unnecessarily low-level mechanics. There's no
necessity of "ref" here; that's a problem of (or a "solution" or maybe
"workaround" in, or a design decision of) your language. - But as many
others here, I anyway don't care much about other's personal languages.
Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 35 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 35 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web