Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #82308 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-18 08:35 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-20 02:17 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 770 — 36 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-02-18 08:35 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 08:48 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-02-18 22:21 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! guinness.tony@gmail.com - 2016-02-19 03:11 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-02-19 13:49 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-02-19 10:24 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-02-19 17:00 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-02-19 12:08 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-19 12:15 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-02-19 11:06 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 11:53 -0600
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:58 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-02-24 09:40 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 10:24 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 10:31 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-02-25 06:52 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2016-02-20 00:44 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-02-24 16:28 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 20:17 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-02-25 10:41 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-25 02:54 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Randy Howard <rhoward.mx@EverybodyUsesIt.com> - 2016-02-25 10:26 -0600
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-01 09:44 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-01 09:26 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-01 10:08 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-01 11:01 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-01 11:37 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-01 12:15 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-01 12:44 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-02 15:27 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-02 14:41 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-02 23:35 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-03 16:44 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-03 01:09 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-01 13:10 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 19:56 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-01 23:13 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-05 10:30 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-01 23:00 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 01:12 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-02-25 11:16 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-25 11:02 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-25 03:21 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-25 12:02 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-02-25 13:19 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-02-25 20:32 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-25 21:55 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-02-25 14:44 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-25 23:41 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-02-25 17:44 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-26 02:03 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-02-25 19:34 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-02-25 22:27 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-02-26 11:59 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-02-25 23:57 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-26 01:29 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-02-25 18:19 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-02-26 11:46 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-26 12:25 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-02-26 21:11 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-02-26 12:41 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-02-25 19:50 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-02-26 17:29 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-02-26 19:33 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-02-26 20:43 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-26 11:03 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-02-26 19:56 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-26 21:04 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-02-26 13:13 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-26 19:33 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-02-26 21:16 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-02-26 12:59 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-03 08:20 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-02-26 01:02 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-02-26 19:35 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-26 19:09 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-02-26 12:27 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-02-26 19:53 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-02-27 08:26 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-27 16:56 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-02-27 10:27 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-02-26 19:49 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-02-26 19:56 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-02-26 19:58 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-01 14:38 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-02 11:02 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-02 13:27 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-02 16:40 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 20:28 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-05 14:44 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-06 12:00 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-07 21:42 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-16 10:41 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-21 18:13 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-21 10:10 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-03-21 07:55 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-21 13:23 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-03-21 08:56 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-21 09:20 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-21 21:18 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-21 13:36 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-03-21 14:28 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-03-21 17:49 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-22 11:37 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-03-22 11:53 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-22 13:35 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-22 12:43 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-03-22 07:01 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-22 12:16 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 12:40 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-03-22 12:51 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 13:32 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-22 15:49 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 19:20 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-22 21:30 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 21:52 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-03-22 18:02 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-22 22:07 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 22:28 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-22 22:47 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 23:05 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-22 16:43 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-23 00:33 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-03-22 20:44 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-23 01:10 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-23 01:23 +0000
AWK's 'for' loop (Was: Aargh! Don't do this!) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-03-23 05:30 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-23 08:18 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-03-23 23:43 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-22 18:13 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-23 14:33 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-23 15:02 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-23 19:09 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-23 21:18 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-23 14:54 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-23 22:21 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-23 22:42 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-23 22:41 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 00:43 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-24 00:54 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 21:26 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 11:43 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-24 01:43 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 02:47 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-24 10:30 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 03:54 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 11:54 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 05:31 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 13:04 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-24 13:16 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-24 13:12 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-24 06:24 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-24 13:46 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 07:05 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 07:02 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 14:44 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-24 15:00 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 15:31 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-24 15:36 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Randy Howard <rhoward.mx@EverybodyUsesIt.com> - 2016-03-24 11:22 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 16:54 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-03-24 13:05 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-03-24 13:43 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-03-24 13:51 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-24 17:00 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 17:31 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 18:26 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-24 21:19 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-25 01:18 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-25 11:21 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-25 12:07 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jos V <xjosx@xjosaphatx.co> - 2016-03-26 15:19 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-26 19:40 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-26 14:35 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-26 22:11 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-24 11:18 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-24 11:13 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-25 09:26 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-25 01:16 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-25 14:16 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-25 06:54 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-25 15:43 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-25 11:10 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-26 19:29 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-03-24 11:00 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-24 16:12 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2016-04-12 21:58 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-04-15 19:13 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Randy Howard <rhoward.mx@EverybodyUsesIt.com> - 2016-03-24 11:19 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-24 11:06 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 19:43 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-24 16:05 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-24 10:28 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-25 11:49 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-23 11:43 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-23 01:15 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 01:32 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 12:53 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-23 00:07 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-23 11:41 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-23 10:16 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! jadill33@gmail.com - 2016-03-23 11:55 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-30 11:04 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 18:48 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-24 19:03 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Randy Howard <rhoward.mx@EverybodyUsesIt.com> - 2016-03-24 14:15 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-24 12:18 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-26 19:20 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-25 01:04 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 12:26 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-26 19:28 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-25 11:18 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-25 18:04 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-25 12:17 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-25 12:49 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-26 07:14 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-26 07:23 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-25 23:54 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-26 10:16 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-26 10:35 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-26 03:04 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-26 10:18 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-26 10:24 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-03-26 11:28 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-26 19:33 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-26 16:13 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-24 12:11 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-24 12:36 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-24 21:21 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-24 15:25 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 22:40 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-24 16:21 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-25 13:53 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-25 01:23 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-25 16:23 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-25 01:25 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-24 19:09 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-30 11:25 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-25 12:25 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-25 14:06 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-25 08:44 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-25 16:02 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-25 09:21 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-25 18:40 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-26 19:42 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-03-26 15:49 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-26 20:22 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-26 21:34 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Randy Howard <rhoward.mx@EverybodyUsesIt.com> - 2016-03-26 19:36 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-26 21:43 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-27 04:43 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-25 15:47 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-03-24 23:17 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-22 15:48 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-30 14:37 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-03-30 17:58 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-31 08:47 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-05 11:10 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-05 11:18 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-06 09:38 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-06 18:18 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-06 10:48 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-07 00:34 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-06 17:23 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-07 11:38 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-07 11:49 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-07 12:10 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-07 12:12 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-07 12:35 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-07 19:42 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-07 18:51 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-08 02:14 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-04-08 02:41 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-04-08 16:13 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-04-08 22:20 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-04-08 21:51 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-09 02:54 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-08 22:47 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 15:29 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-09 10:51 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-08 19:12 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-09 11:45 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-09 01:27 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-09 12:34 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-09 01:47 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-09 13:19 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-09 11:04 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-09 22:46 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-09 12:22 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 04:57 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 05:41 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-10 12:31 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-10 02:22 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-10 21:21 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-09 21:40 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-10 21:25 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-10 10:20 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 04:40 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-09 13:55 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 06:15 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-09 14:43 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 06:56 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-09 17:29 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 09:57 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! mrs@kithrup.com (Mike Stump) - 2016-04-29 07:57 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-29 20:23 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-29 11:32 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-29 23:38 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-29 13:15 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-30 16:32 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-29 23:54 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-30 11:15 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-30 22:32 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-30 09:41 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-01 00:33 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-30 11:31 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-30 09:06 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-30 15:09 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-01 00:32 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-01 10:54 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-04-09 13:58 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 05:18 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-09 13:37 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 05:46 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-09 14:07 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 06:28 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 07:14 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-04-09 15:27 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-08 20:43 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Randy Howard <rhoward.mx@EverybodyUsesIt.com> - 2016-04-09 13:37 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-04-10 01:43 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-09 01:03 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-08 22:22 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-08 11:46 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-08 11:30 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-08 11:48 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-08 07:37 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-04-08 14:19 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-08 13:40 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-08 08:40 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-08 16:52 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-08 12:47 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-08 17:40 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-08 12:51 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-08 18:26 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-08 20:37 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-04-09 15:38 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-09 16:52 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-04-09 22:33 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-14 07:18 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-04-14 14:26 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-14 09:44 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-15 13:41 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-03 11:21 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-03 20:12 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-05 09:40 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-05 18:04 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-05 11:01 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-05-08 09:16 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-08 10:48 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-05-08 11:10 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-08 04:59 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-08 13:18 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-08 18:53 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-08 19:09 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-08 19:38 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-08 20:07 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-08 20:33 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-08 21:11 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-08 21:51 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-08 14:45 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-09 00:45 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-05-08 21:17 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-08 19:40 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-09 00:42 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-09 09:07 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-09 10:48 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-05-09 08:57 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-09 00:31 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-09 11:54 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-09 10:50 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-09 11:35 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-09 20:30 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-09 13:44 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-09 14:08 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-09 15:09 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-09 15:21 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-09 21:26 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 06:59 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 02:24 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-10 08:50 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 09:32 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-10 18:12 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 13:28 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-05-13 16:12 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-10 11:11 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-05-10 19:00 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 06:57 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-09 22:48 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-09 15:13 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-10 00:45 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 07:01 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-10 11:44 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 04:20 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-10 16:03 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 08:08 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 08:09 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-11 01:17 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 08:47 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-11 01:04 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 20:20 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 21:06 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 21:56 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-11 13:58 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-11 12:31 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-11 06:17 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-11 19:50 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-11 20:45 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-11 21:15 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-11 22:42 -0700
Pronouns (Was: Aargh! Don't do this!) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-05-11 20:31 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-11 08:31 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-11 17:00 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-11 08:34 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-09 08:59 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-09 17:43 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-09 09:55 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-09 10:57 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-05-09 07:40 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-08 14:39 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 02:43 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-15 03:12 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 04:28 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-05-22 13:39 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-22 10:00 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-05-22 17:15 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-22 18:47 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-23 01:15 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-23 22:01 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-23 03:59 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-23 09:06 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-23 06:35 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-05-23 16:56 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-23 16:55 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-23 18:08 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-23 10:24 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-23 21:55 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-23 23:16 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-05-23 22:51 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-24 10:32 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-05-26 11:17 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-23 16:31 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-10 06:20 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-10 14:56 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-14 10:36 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-05-10 14:02 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-05 11:08 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-05 19:21 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-07 03:52 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-07 12:10 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-04-09 15:48 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-07 12:14 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-04-10 11:46 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-10 14:25 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-10 15:53 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-10 17:00 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-10 20:01 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-10 20:28 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-11 00:40 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-11 11:47 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-11 11:53 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-11 04:39 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-11 13:15 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-11 14:14 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-11 14:28 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-15 12:37 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-15 08:10 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-15 16:33 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-15 16:29 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-15 16:50 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-04-15 16:39 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-16 12:29 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-04-16 14:02 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-04-16 20:56 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2016-04-23 10:28 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-15 18:00 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-15 18:21 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-15 11:30 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-15 20:56 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-15 14:30 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-04-15 21:33 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-15 23:23 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-15 15:33 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-15 19:38 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-15 21:22 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-15 21:41 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-15 22:50 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-04-11 16:44 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-11 09:00 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-04-11 18:47 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-12 11:15 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-04-13 10:49 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-13 03:46 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-13 07:50 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-04-12 21:18 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-04-13 10:50 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-04-10 15:15 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-06 20:13 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-14 07:13 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-14 10:06 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-04-14 23:41 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-03 12:36 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-03 13:24 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-05 10:09 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-03 12:18 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-05-09 07:46 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-11 10:55 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-05-13 16:20 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-14 10:17 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-15 13:00 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-03 11:55 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-03 20:46 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-05 10:46 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-05 14:05 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-12 07:48 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-12 12:55 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-12 10:17 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-12 18:29 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-12 10:59 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-12 20:39 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-12 21:21 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-05-13 11:24 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-13 09:17 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-13 11:39 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-13 04:03 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-05-13 12:14 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-13 04:41 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-13 09:00 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-13 09:29 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-05-13 14:37 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-13 13:47 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-13 07:57 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-05-13 16:14 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-13 08:39 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-05-13 16:59 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-05-13 16:24 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 11:58 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! crisdunbar@gmail.com - 2016-05-13 10:44 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 11:57 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-14 04:14 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-05-14 12:37 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-14 05:42 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-05-14 14:11 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-14 08:06 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-14 09:03 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-05-14 15:10 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-13 16:53 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-13 09:26 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-13 17:26 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-13 14:58 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-13 22:01 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-13 20:12 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-14 01:17 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-13 20:29 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-14 03:18 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-14 07:42 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-14 15:56 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-14 08:28 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-14 17:22 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-14 21:36 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-15 10:30 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-14 03:10 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-05-13 01:50 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-12 21:19 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-05-13 11:22 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-13 08:01 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-05-13 16:20 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-13 08:48 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-12 20:32 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-14 10:50 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-14 21:37 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-16 19:50 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-12 18:15 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-14 10:57 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-14 11:32 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-16 20:01 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-05 19:39 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-12 08:49 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-05 11:40 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-10 08:18 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-06 20:10 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-04-07 00:50 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-06 21:05 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-03 11:22 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-03 21:06 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-05 10:47 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-04-10 11:07 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-14 10:26 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-04-15 19:30 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-15 12:54 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-03 13:31 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-04 07:19 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-05-09 07:56 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-09 02:23 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-12 12:09 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-03-31 08:19 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-31 14:11 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-03-31 10:25 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-31 16:15 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-31 16:41 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-05 11:42 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-05 11:33 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-05 11:53 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-06 09:57 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-04-05 21:05 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-04-05 21:11 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-30 14:30 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-03-30 17:15 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-05 09:42 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-04-06 17:44 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-14 07:21 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-30 18:28 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-30 19:38 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 07:08 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 07:24 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 07:37 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-05 07:51 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-30 15:46 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-30 18:37 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-03-26 20:47 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-26 21:44 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-26 15:31 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-26 23:25 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-26 17:28 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-26 18:04 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-26 18:24 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-26 19:01 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-26 22:29 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-27 12:08 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-27 08:40 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-27 16:51 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-27 11:55 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-27 20:13 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-27 12:59 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-27 21:16 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-27 13:42 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-27 22:43 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-27 16:53 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-28 01:45 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-27 18:50 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-27 22:25 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-03-27 22:05 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-27 22:14 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-03-27 17:20 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-27 15:18 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-03-27 18:26 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-03-27 22:11 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-28 14:21 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-28 12:34 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-29 10:10 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-29 07:38 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-29 09:08 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-29 10:13 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-29 12:48 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-29 13:33 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-30 11:31 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-31 08:53 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-31 10:04 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-31 12:14 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-05 07:34 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-05 08:25 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-04-07 10:30 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-05 07:08 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-05 07:31 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-05 11:54 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-05 13:51 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-12 13:03 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-12 14:30 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-14 11:03 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-26 17:56 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-27 02:17 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-30 14:22 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-06 00:05 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-27 13:08 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-27 00:47 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-27 02:07 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-27 12:43 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-27 16:40 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-27 14:09 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-27 00:05 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-27 21:56 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-27 12:46 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-28 09:38 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-27 21:45 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-30 15:03 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-31 15:25 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-05 11:59 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-06 08:03 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-05 13:38 -0700
Gcc (Was: Aargh! Something stupid...) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-04-05 21:23 +0000
Re: Gcc (Was: Aargh! Something stupid...) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-05 15:56 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-04-06 09:57 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-06 07:44 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-06 08:58 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-06 09:46 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-06 11:50 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-06 12:49 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-06 13:20 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-06 14:54 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-06 15:37 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-06 16:32 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-06 17:37 -0700
Integer semantics supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-07 07:39 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-06 10:01 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-07 08:34 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-05 08:32 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-30 14:54 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-06 12:50 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-06 12:25 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 04:27 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 04:40 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 16:39 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-06 04:36 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-06 15:26 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-07 02:01 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-07 21:53 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-07 15:52 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-16 09:49 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-06 09:11 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-05 13:20 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-06 16:51 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 16:08 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 09:16 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-06 17:24 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 09:34 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 09:29 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 09:49 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 09:57 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 10:39 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-06 18:55 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 00:47 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-07 10:09 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 07:36 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:09 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:10 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:34 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 04:50 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 09:32 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 09:45 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 10:42 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-07 21:18 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 13:40 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-07 13:47 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 19:12 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-07 21:54 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-07 23:45 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 06:30 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-16 11:42 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-16 12:15 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-19 13:37 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-03-19 17:20 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-20 11:18 +0000
Columbus (Was: Aargh! something or other...) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-03-20 13:22 +0000
Re: Columbus (Was: Aargh! something or other...) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 15:34 -0500
Re: Columbus (Was: Aargh! something or other...) Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-03-21 01:33 -0700
Re: Columbus (Was: Aargh! something or other...) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-21 04:09 -0500
Re: Columbus (Was: Aargh! something or other...) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-21 18:10 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-17 11:03 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-19 13:34 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-20 02:17 +0100
Page 12 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 39 Next page →
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 03:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <37f4c813-e2ca-41ca-984b-550a8f2287bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #84994 |
On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 9:16:56 AM UTC, Rosario19 wrote:
>
> >i = 0;
> >j = 0;
> >while(1)
> >{
> > /*stuff */
> > i = f(i,j);
> > j = g(i,j); //Note, suspected bug here, should i be updated?
>
> above yes because i = f(i,j); is executed first than j = g(i,j);
> i=f(i,j), j=g(i,j)
> is the same
>
It's just a little bit surprising. I know it's just a scratch
example. But it looks like f() calculates dx and g() calculates
dy, and I'd expect both to be calculated from the original position.
So I flagged it as a possible bug. It's the sort of thing you often
have to do if you're working in team environment.
One argument against busy for() loops is that it makes that sort of
question harder to document and, if necessary, correct.
>
> the problem i see if it is not allowed without UBs in "i=f(i,j);"
> change i
>
Exactly. If I'm right and it's a bug, then we'll have to refactor
to correct, whilst with the while loop it's just a small change.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 10:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rskcfb9pav605a3blcgk8g5hbskgbjl8fp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #84991 |
On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 23:54:50 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McLean
<malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> and how would you traslate this:
>> for(i=0, j=0; i+j*4<1024; i=f(i), j=g(j))
>>
>> or this:
>> for(i=0, j=0; h(i,j); i=f(i,j), j=g(i,j))
>
>i = 0;
>j = 0;
>while(1)
>{
> /*stuff */
> i = f(i,j);
> j = g(i,j); //Note, suspected bug here, should i be updated?
> if(i+j*4>=1024) //Maybe insert explanation here
> break;
>}
your translation of for loop is wrong it would be this:
i = 0;
j = 0;
goto label;
while(1)
{
/*stuff */
i = f(i,j);
j = g(i,j); //Note, suspected bug here, should i be updated?
label:;
if(i+j*4>=1024) //Maybe insert explanation here
break;
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 10:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g9lcfbtog0el5g8rujujs4ln3eobhscsai@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #84995 |
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 10:18:56 +0100, Rosario19 wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 23:54:50 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McLean
><malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>> and how would you traslate this:
>>> for(i=0, j=0; i+j*4<1024; i=f(i), j=g(j))
>>>
>>> or this:
>>> for(i=0, j=0; h(i,j); i=f(i,j), j=g(i,j))
>>
>>i = 0;
>>j = 0;
>>while(1)
>>{
>> /*stuff */
>> i = f(i,j);
>> j = g(i,j); //Note, suspected bug here, should i be updated?
>> if(i+j*4>=1024) //Maybe insert explanation here
>> break;
>>}
>
>your translation of for loop is wrong it would be this:
>i = 0;
>j = 0;
>
>goto label;
>while(1)
>{
> /*stuff */
> i = f(i,j);
> j = g(i,j); //Note, suspected bug here, should i be updated?
>label:;
> if(i+j*4>=1024) //Maybe insert explanation here
> break;
>}
my error in this case...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 11:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <KUxJy.68970$111.60224@fx31.iad> |
| In reply to | #84995 |
On 3/26/16 5:18 AM, Rosario19 wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 23:54:50 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McLean
> <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>> and how would you traslate this:
>>> for(i=0, j=0; i+j*4<1024; i=f(i), j=g(j))
>>>
>>> or this:
>>> for(i=0, j=0; h(i,j); i=f(i,j), j=g(i,j))
>>
>> i = 0;
>> j = 0;
>> while(1)
>> {
>> /*stuff */
>> i = f(i,j);
>> j = g(i,j); //Note, suspected bug here, should i be updated?
>> if(i+j*4>=1024) //Maybe insert explanation here
>> break;
>> }
>
> your translation of for loop is wrong it would be this:
> i = 0;
> j = 0;
>
> goto label;
> while(1)
> {
> /*stuff */
> i = f(i,j);
> j = g(i,j); //Note, suspected bug here, should i be updated?
> label:;
> if(i+j*4>=1024) //Maybe insert explanation here
> break;
> }
>
Actually,
i = 0;
j = 0;
goto label1;
while(1)
{
/* stuff */
label2: /* replace 'continue' in stuff with 'goto label2'
i = f(i,j);
j = g(i,j); // Question, do we want update i here?
label1:
if(i+j*4>=1024) // Explanation here?
break;
}
Personally, I would leave the condition in the while here, as it is the
(a?) terminal condition of the loop. I leave while(1) loops for loops
that are infinite, or have a more complex terminal condition (perhaps it
varies based on path through the loop)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 19:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nd6nvg$51c$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84899 |
On 25/03/16 11:18, BartC wrote: > On 24/03/2016 19:03, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 24/03/16 18:48, BartC wrote: > >>> If I complain however, then it's /my/ problem. >> >> Well, I know it's not my problem. I don't think it's Eric Sosman's >> problem, or Randy Howard's problem, or Keith Thompson's problem, or >> David Brown's problem, or Lew Pitcher's problem. And it's obviously not >> a problem for the ISO C Committee, or they'd have 'fixed' it long ago. > > That doesn't follow. Lots of things in C do give problems to many (such > as its type declaration syntax; although obviously not to you), but they > haven't been fixed either. Same reasoning applies. If type declaration syntax were a serious problem, ISO would fix it. Supporting evidence: gets() was a serious problem, so they fixed it (by removing it). Conclusion: type declaration syntax is not a serious problem. <snip> -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 16:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnr3ew3k96.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #85035 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 25/03/16 11:18, BartC wrote:
>> On 24/03/2016 19:03, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 24/03/16 18:48, BartC wrote:
>>
>>>> If I complain however, then it's /my/ problem.
>>>
>>> Well, I know it's not my problem. I don't think it's Eric Sosman's
>>> problem, or Randy Howard's problem, or Keith Thompson's problem, or
>>> David Brown's problem, or Lew Pitcher's problem. And it's obviously not
>>> a problem for the ISO C Committee, or they'd have 'fixed' it long ago.
>>
>> That doesn't follow. Lots of things in C do give problems to many (such
>> as its type declaration syntax; although obviously not to you), but they
>> haven't been fixed either.
>
> Same reasoning applies. If type declaration syntax were a serious
> problem, ISO would fix it. Supporting evidence: gets() was a serious
> problem, so they fixed it (by removing it).
>
> Conclusion: type declaration syntax is not a serious problem.
>
> <snip>
There is another possibility: that type declaration syntax *is* a
problem, but there's no way to fix it at a reasonable
cost (either breaking existing code or introducing a new syntax
that would coexist with the existing syntax).
My personal feeling is that C's "declaration follows use (more or
less)" approach was an interesting experiment, but it hasn't been a
particularly successful one. I offer as evidence the fact that the
"cdecl" tool exists.
On the other hand, I don't think it's bad enough that I'd consider it a
*serious* problem, more of an annoyance, usually avoidable by keeping
type declarations fairly simple.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 12:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnshzf668p.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #84847 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 23/03/2016 17:16, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>
>> Th other thing that sometimes happens is that people use a combination of
>> for flexibility, comma operators, and logical operator short-circuiting to build
>> quite complex flow control logic into a single for statement. The result can be very
>> hard to decipher.
>
> That's it in a nutshell.
>
> But apparently none of the experts here have the slightest problem with
> very 'busy' loop statements.
What gave you that idea?
Yes, you can write overly complex for loops. Writing overly complex
*anything* is a bad idea (where the meaning of "overly" will inevitably
vary from one person to another).
Most of us have no particular problem with for loops that are more
complex than you're comfortable with. But I think anyone here would
have a problem with a for loop where the three clauses are, say, 20
lines each. The language doesn't forbid writing bad code like that,
because there's no way to forbid writing all bad code that wouldn't also
forbid writing some good code.
You have a lower tolerance for complexity in for loops than nearly
anyone else here. What do you suggest we do about that?
Let me ask that again (this is not a rhetorical question):
What do you suggest we do about that?
> If I complain however, then it's /my/ problem. (Someone ever suggested I
> read K&R chapter 1 to help understand for-statements!)
One possible explanation for your apparent hatred of C for loops is that
you don't understand them.
Observation: Many C programmers regularly use C's for loops. Some could
be trivially rewritten as BASIC-style for loops; others (such as one
that iterates over a linked list) cannot.
Observation: Most of us do not have, or at least have not expressed, a
problem with reading, writing, or understanding, such loops.
Observation: One person in this newsgroup has expended a great deal of
effort saying that C-style for loops are bad, and should be simplified
to correspond more closely to BASIC-style for loops.
The rest of us don't have a problem that needs to be fixed.
> (BTW look at that chapter, 1.2/page 2 in K&R2, and the example has a
> comment like this:
>
> for fahr = 0, 20, ..., 300
>
> which is probably the best syntax for a 'for' statement in the book!)
I've seen at least one language (SETL) that uses a syntax very similar
to that to express ranges. For example:
fives = {5, 10..100}
sets `fives` to a sequence of 20 elements, the multiples of 5 from 5 to
100. (It's nice, but I don't suggest adding such a thing to C.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 12:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a9ad6477-beb6-4527-a812-a1516bcab8aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #84847 |
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 1:48:28 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
> (BTW look at that chapter, 1.2/page 2 in K&R2, and the example has a
> comment like this:
>
> for fahr = 0, 20, ..., 300
I would think something like:
for (int loopVar=0; <=endingValue; +=stepSize)
might be a nice syntax, with the additional semantics that [1] there is
one control value; direct modification of it would be a constraint
violation, and indirect modification would invoke Undefined Behavior.
[2] an implementation could make an Unspecified choice after each iteration
to either evaluate the ending bound and step or use any previous value
which has been observed during the current execution of the loop; [3] the
loop would terminate cleanly if the mathematical sum of the loop variable
and the step size would fail the loop condition, whether or not that
value is representable in the loop-variable type.
The syntax would be unambiguous compared with anything else defined in any
C dialect I know of, it would offer optimization opportunities which are
not available in present C, and it would allow some kinds of loops to be
written more cleanly than is presently possible since the compiler would
take care of ending conditions (often more efficiently than it would be
able to perform a loop exactly as written).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 21:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87d1qja7x9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #84847 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 23/03/2016 17:16, Malcolm McLean wrote: > >> Th other thing that sometimes happens is that people use a combination of >> for flexibility, comma operators, and logical operator short-circuiting to build >> quite complex flow control logic into a single for statement. The >> result can be very >> hard to decipher. > > That's it in a nutshell. > > But apparently none of the experts here have the slightest problem > with very 'busy' loop statements. Hmmm... am I in that category? If so, I wonder how you conclude I have no problem with very busy loop statements... <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 15:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln7fgr5x9y.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #84863 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 23/03/2016 17:16, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> Th other thing that sometimes happens is that people use a combination of
>>> for flexibility, comma operators, and logical operator short-circuiting to build
>>> quite complex flow control logic into a single for statement. The
>>> result can be very
>>> hard to decipher.
>>
>> That's it in a nutshell.
>>
>> But apparently none of the experts here have the slightest problem
>> with very 'busy' loop statements.
>
> Hmmm... am I in that category? If so, I wonder how you conclude I have
> no problem with very busy loop statements...
>
> <snip>
Let me speculate based on what Bart has written here.
Bart finds both this:
for (node *ptr = head; node != NULL; node = node->next)
and this:
for ([complicated 20-line expression];
[complicated 20-line expression];
[complicated 20-line expression])
to be "very busy", and assumes that anyone who doesn't object to the
first would not object to the second.
Bart, would you say that's a reasonably accurate summary of your
opinion? This is not intended as a criticism, just an attempt at
understanding where you're coming from.
(For the record, I find the first quite clear, and the second almost
certainly unclear and difficult to maintain.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 22:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nd1q7d$3gm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84868 |
On 24/03/2016 22:25, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> But apparently none of the experts here have the slightest problem
>>> with very 'busy' loop statements.
>>
>> Hmmm... am I in that category? If so, I wonder how you conclude I have
>> no problem with very busy loop statements...
(OK, of those expressed an opinion...)
>> <snip>
>
> Let me speculate based on what Bart has written here.
>
> Bart finds both this:
>
> for (node *ptr = head; node != NULL; node = node->next)
>
> and this:
>
> for ([complicated 20-line expression];
> [complicated 20-line expression];
> [complicated 20-line expression])
>
> to be "very busy", and assumes that anyone who doesn't object to the
> first would not object to the second.
>
> Bart, would you say that's a reasonably accurate summary of your
> opinion? This is not intended as a criticism, just an attempt at
> understanding where you're coming from.
Actually, if the second example really was on separate lines (not 60 but
perhaps 3), then it would at least be clearer in that respect! That, is,
I can tell more easily where one part clause ends and the next begins.
But if you were to split it up, then there wouldn't be much difference
between:
for (node *ptr = head;
node != NULL;
node = node->next)
and, giving it even more visible extra and an extra cue in form of 'while':
node *ptr = head;
while (node != NULL) {
....
node = node->next;
}
(And if there was no body, and you really needed it on one line:
node *ptr = head; while (node != NULL) node = node->next;
)
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 16:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lny4974g34.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #84870 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 24/03/2016 22:25, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>>>> But apparently none of the experts here have the slightest problem
>>>> with very 'busy' loop statements.
>>>
>>> Hmmm... am I in that category? If so, I wonder how you conclude I have
>>> no problem with very busy loop statements...
>
> (OK, of those expressed an opinion...)
>
>>> <snip>
>>
>> Let me speculate based on what Bart has written here.
>>
>> Bart finds both this:
>>
>> for (node *ptr = head; node != NULL; node = node->next)
>>
>> and this:
>>
>> for ([complicated 20-line expression];
>> [complicated 20-line expression];
>> [complicated 20-line expression])
>>
>> to be "very busy", and assumes that anyone who doesn't object to the
>> first would not object to the second.
>>
>> Bart, would you say that's a reasonably accurate summary of your
>> opinion? This is not intended as a criticism, just an attempt at
>> understanding where you're coming from.
>
> Actually, if the second example really was on separate lines (not 60 but
> perhaps 3), then it would at least be clearer in that respect! That, is,
> I can tell more easily where one part clause ends and the next begins.
>
> But if you were to split it up, then there wouldn't be much difference
> between:
>
> for (node *ptr = head;
> node != NULL;
> node = node->next)
>
> and, giving it even more visible extra and an extra cue in form of 'while':
>
> node *ptr = head;
> while (node != NULL) {
> ....
> node = node->next;
> }
>
> (And if there was no body, and you really needed it on one line:
>
> node *ptr = head; while (node != NULL) node = node->next;
>
> )
Bart, I take you at your word that you find the while loop more legible
than the for loop, but I am truly at a loss to understand it. Perhaps
you're hung up on the use of the word "for", which you expect to mean
something other than what it means in C, but I don't think that's all of
it.
I might expect this from someone who simply doesn't understand how C's
for loop is defined, but that's not the case for you.
I find this:
for (node *ptr = head; node != NULL; node = node->next)
to be quite idiomatic and easy to understand. Splitting the three
clauses onto separate lines doesn't hurt the readability *too* much, but
it certainly doesn't help. It would if the clauses were too long to fit
on a single line, but in this case they aren't.
Breaking it down into a while loop definitely doesn't help. With the
for loop, the entire looping mechanism is gathered in one place.
With your transformation to a while loop, it's scattered to the
line preceding the loop, the top line of the loop, and last line
of the body of the loop.
And no, if I were going to write it as a while loop I *definitely*
wouldn't put it all on one line; that's just obfuscation (and your
one-line while loop omitted the code that does something with the
current node). I suspect you agree that putting it on one line is
not helpful, but you expected me to think it does help.
C's for loop is not going to change, because most C programmers have no
problem with it the way it is now, and because changing it would break
existing code.
You're not going to convince us that your opinions about for loops are
correct, nor are we going to convince you.
I really don't think there's anything more that can be usefully said.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-25 13:53 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <dljgg0Fih2gU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #84870 |
On 03/25/16 11:40, BartC wrote:
> On 24/03/2016 22:25, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>>>> But apparently none of the experts here have the slightest problem
>>>> with very 'busy' loop statements.
>>>
>>> Hmmm... am I in that category? If so, I wonder how you conclude I have
>>> no problem with very busy loop statements...
>
> (OK, of those expressed an opinion...)
>
>>> <snip>
>>
>> Let me speculate based on what Bart has written here.
>>
>> Bart finds both this:
>>
>> for (node *ptr = head; node != NULL; node = node->next)
>>
>> and this:
>>
>> for ([complicated 20-line expression];
>> [complicated 20-line expression];
>> [complicated 20-line expression])
>>
>> to be "very busy", and assumes that anyone who doesn't object to the
>> first would not object to the second.
>>
>> Bart, would you say that's a reasonably accurate summary of your
>> opinion? This is not intended as a criticism, just an attempt at
>> understanding where you're coming from.
>
> Actually, if the second example really was on separate lines (not 60 but
> perhaps 3), then it would at least be clearer in that respect! That, is,
> I can tell more easily where one part clause ends and the next begins.
>
> But if you were to split it up, then there wouldn't be much difference
> between:
>
> for (node *ptr = head;
> node != NULL;
> node = node->next)
>
> and, giving it even more visible extra and an extra cue in form of 'while':
>
> node *ptr = head;
> while (node != NULL) {
> ....
> node = node->next;
> }
I can see logic in your reasoning, but possibly not the same logic as you!
At the risk of doing a Malcolm, there are two basic forms of iteration
of an container (I use the term to describe a generic thing such as an
array or a list that can be iterated over):
1) iteration that may inspect or modify the elements in the container
and
2) iteration as the first form but may alter the structure of the container.
If you are working with arrays, a for loop is at best a poor fit for the
second form. If you are working with a more flexible container such as
a linked list, a for loop is fine for the first form, but a poor fit for
the second.
So what if your code does a mix of the two? Say searching a linked list
as well as removing items from it. Would you use a for loop to search
and a while loop to remove, or would you prefer the symmetry of a while
loop for both?
--
Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-25 01:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nd23oo$4cv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84874 |
On 25/03/2016 00:53, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 03/25/16 11:40, BartC wrote:
>> node *ptr = head;
>> while (node != NULL) {
>> ....
>> node = node->next;
>> }
>
> I can see logic in your reasoning, but possibly not the same logic as you!
>
> At the risk of doing a Malcolm, there are two basic forms of iteration
> of an container (I use the term to describe a generic thing such as an
> array or a list that can be iterated over):
>
> 1) iteration that may inspect or modify the elements in the container
>
> and
>
> 2) iteration as the first form but may alter the structure of the
> container.
>
> If you are working with arrays, a for loop is at best a poor fit for the
> second form. If you are working with a more flexible container such as
> a linked list, a for loop is fine for the first form, but a poor fit for
> the second.
>
> So what if your code does a mix of the two? Say searching a linked list
> as well as removing items from it. Would you use a for loop to search
> and a while loop to remove, or would you prefer the symmetry of a while
> loop for both?
I'd just take a lot of care with (2). It needs more than just the right
choice of loop.
For (1), I mainly use iterative 'for' for arrays with known lengths, and
'while' for linked lists where likely the lengths are not known.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-25 16:23 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <dljp9jFih2gU12@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #84876 |
On 03/25/16 14:23, BartC wrote:
> On 25/03/2016 00:53, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 03/25/16 11:40, BartC wrote:
>
>>> node *ptr = head;
>>> while (node != NULL) {
>>> ....
>>> node = node->next;
>>> }
>>
>> I can see logic in your reasoning, but possibly not the same logic as you!
>>
>> At the risk of doing a Malcolm, there are two basic forms of iteration
>> of an container (I use the term to describe a generic thing such as an
>> array or a list that can be iterated over):
>>
>> 1) iteration that may inspect or modify the elements in the container
>>
>> and
>>
>> 2) iteration as the first form but may alter the structure of the
>> container.
>>
>> If you are working with arrays, a for loop is at best a poor fit for the
>> second form. If you are working with a more flexible container such as
>> a linked list, a for loop is fine for the first form, but a poor fit for
>> the second.
>>
>> So what if your code does a mix of the two? Say searching a linked list
>> as well as removing items from it. Would you use a for loop to search
>> and a while loop to remove, or would you prefer the symmetry of a while
>> loop for both?
>
> I'd just take a lot of care with (2). It needs more than just the right
> choice of loop.
Indeed.
> For (1), I mainly use iterative 'for' for arrays with known lengths, and
> 'while' for linked lists where likely the lengths are not known.
So do I, but that's more down to symmetry with 2) than not knowing the end.
--
Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-25 01:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87zitn8i2m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #84870 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 24/03/2016 22:25, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>>>> But apparently none of the experts here have the slightest problem
>>>> with very 'busy' loop statements.
>>>
>>> Hmmm... am I in that category? If so, I wonder how you conclude I have
>>> no problem with very busy loop statements...
>
> (OK, of those expressed an opinion...)
>
>>> <snip>
>>
>> Let me speculate based on what Bart has written here.
>>
>> Bart finds both this:
>>
>> for (node *ptr = head; node != NULL; node = node->next)
>>
>> and this:
>>
>> for ([complicated 20-line expression];
>> [complicated 20-line expression];
>> [complicated 20-line expression])
>>
>> to be "very busy", and assumes that anyone who doesn't object to the
>> first would not object to the second.
>>
>> Bart, would you say that's a reasonably accurate summary of your
>> opinion? This is not intended as a criticism, just an attempt at
>> understanding where you're coming from.
>
> Actually, if the second example really was on separate lines (not 60
> but perhaps 3), then it would at least be clearer in that respect!
> That, is, I can tell more easily where one part clause ends and the
> next begins.
I think there are two things going on here all mixed up. First, you
want a simple counting loop. I have no trouble with that as general
notion. In a fresh language design I would seriously consider one and I
agree that C's more general pattern is not ideal for the simple cases.
But C is unlikely to ever get one partly because there is just too much
overlap with the existing mechanism and partly, I suspect, that it would
be fiddly to get the other benefits like an immutable control variable
that might tip the balance for change.
The other issue is that you don't like the fact that C's for is used in
more than trivial situations, and, since the syntax is not at its best
in these simple situation the whole things looks like a mess to you.
I suspect that some of your dislike is just down to what you expect from
a construct called "for" but some might also stem from the fact that the
syntax is "light", with only a semicolon to separate the parts, and
nothing to highlight the components if you split it across lines.
I find the notion of a loop where the initial state, the condition and
the step parts are all collected together very clear and useful. So
what happens if the syntax is more heavy-weight:
FOR node *n = list;
WHILE n != NULL
STEP n = n->next DO
...
DONE
would you like it more *as an idea*? In other words, do you object in
principle to what is for me the main reason to "abuse" (as it is often
called) a for loop: to collect together all the loop control in one
place? (And let's not forget that it plays well with continue for those
that like that kind of thing.)
Personally, I don't find the existing syntax too fiddly (but I seem to
have good eyes for syntax) so the pay-off of state the loops actions in
one place is substantial for me. I'd write
for (unsigned mask = 1u << 8; mask; mask >>= 1) ..
for (long int p = 1; p < max; p *= base) ...
for (node *n = list; n; n = n->next) ...
all day long. There are limits of course to such things, even for me,
but deciding exactly where they come is not really the point, is it?
So C's for loop is not ideal for simple counting, but is it bad enough
to merit a new loop? Not for me, no. And the *idea* of a general init,
test, step loop is a great one, even if the syntax in C is a little less
than perfect. Neither defect is very significant to me, so I can't join
you on the barricades for this particular revolution.
<snip>
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 19:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b7ef4825-18aa-4333-a850-eae887b02334@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #84877 |
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 8:25:29 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > I find the notion of a loop where the initial state, the condition and > the step parts are all collected together very clear and useful. So > what happens if the syntax is more heavy-weight: > > FOR node *n = list; > WHILE n != NULL > STEP n = n->next DO > ... > DONE Sounds a bit like PL/I, though don't think it allowed that combination. It did somewhat helpfully if I recall allow something like: FOR I=1 to 5, 7, 10 to 50 by 10, 75, 100 to 500 by 100 leaving it up to the compiler whether the loop should be implemented using an array of values, an array of (base, count, stepsize) triples, or something else. I don't like combining "for" directly with "while", but would prefer to have an "exiting if" clause.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 11:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnmvpf962d.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #84881 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 8:25:29 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> I find the notion of a loop where the initial state, the condition
>> and the step parts are all collected together very clear and
>> useful. So what happens if the syntax is more heavy-weight:
>>
>> FOR node *n = list;
>> WHILE n != NULL
>> STEP n = n->next DO
>> ...
>> DONE
>
> Sounds a bit like PL/I, though don't think it allowed that
> combination. [...]
The looping construct in PL/I is DO, not FOR. The DO in PL/I
does allow something very much like the above, for example:
DO P = LIST_HEAD REPEAT(P->NEXT) WHILE(P!=NULL);
except of course the != would be written with the logical
negation character that PL/I chose over !.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-25 12:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nd3ai8$o2c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84877 |
On 25/03/2016 01:25, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> Actually, if the second example really was on separate lines (not 60 >> but perhaps 3), then it would at least be clearer in that respect! >> That, is, I can tell more easily where one part clause ends and the >> next begins. > > I think there are two things going on here all mixed up. First, you > want a simple counting loop. I have no trouble with that as general > notion. In a fresh language design I would seriously consider one and I > agree that C's more general pattern is not ideal for the simple cases. > But C is unlikely to ever get one partly because there is just too much > overlap with the existing mechanism and partly, I suspect, that it would > be fiddly to get the other benefits like an immutable control variable > that might tip the balance for change. C won't get one for many reasons. It's just not the sort of language that is ever going to change significantly. And if someone really wants a simple counting loop, they can create one with a macro in one minute, rather than wait 10 or 20 years for the language to provide one. > The other issue is that you don't like the fact that C's for is used in > more than trivial situations, and, since the syntax is not at its best > in these simple situation the whole things looks like a mess to you. I'm more surprised that the same people who are always going on about having one statement per line and using more vertical space, are defending for-statements where everything is crammed in horizontally > I suspect that some of your dislike is just down to what you expect from > a construct called "for" but some might also stem from the fact that the > syntax is "light", with only a semicolon to separate the parts, and > nothing to highlight the components if you split it across lines. ... (and with poor demarcation IMO). > I find the notion of a loop where the initial state, the condition and > the step parts are all collected together very clear and useful. So > what happens if the syntax is more heavy-weight: > > FOR node *n = list; > WHILE n != NULL > STEP n = n->next DO > ... > DONE > > would you like it more *as an idea*? Well, I do prefer clunkier syntax these days. But it took me a while to figure out that this represent C's existing for-statement! This is still a little confusing: it looks like two or three separate statements, and the 'FOR' in the first bit appears to add nothing to the assignment. Without the FOR, it resembles the while statement that C's for actually is. The main difference is that this while incorporates the increment section more locally. (I remember adding C's 'for'-style of loop to one of my languages, but basing it around the 'while' keyword rather than 'for' or 'cfor': while a do ... end # regular while while a,b,c do ... end # C-style for but I can't find that at the minute. Example (not C): while n:=list, n<>nil, n:=n^.next do ... end n:=list while n<>nil, n:=n^.next do ... end # with set-up outside) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-25 14:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87d1qi8xf1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #84907 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 25/03/2016 01:25, Ben Bacarisse wrote: <snip> >> I find the notion of a loop where the initial state, the condition and >> the step parts are all collected together very clear and useful. So >> what happens if the syntax is more heavy-weight: >> >> FOR node *n = list; >> WHILE n != NULL >> STEP n = n->next DO >> ... >> DONE >> >> would you like it more *as an idea*? > > Well, I do prefer clunkier syntax these days. But it took me a while > to figure out that this represent C's existing for-statement! Even though I said that's what I was doing -- just changing the syntax? > This is still a little confusing: it looks like two or three separate > statements, and the 'FOR' in the first bit appears to add nothing to > the assignment. Without the FOR, it resembles the while statement that > C's for actually is. > > The main difference is that this while incorporates the increment > section more locally. The step, not the increment. But, yes, without local declarations, that's the main effect (of course I like the local declarations too). If you see no advantage in that style, you will never like C's for loop. But don't reject the notion because you don't like the syntax I made up to try to illustrate the basic idea. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 39 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web