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 2 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 39 Next page →
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 02:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <18f436ee-fb94-41e6-8073-2a714c430372@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #82631 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 10:41:31 AM UTC, Kenny McCormack wrote: > In article <dj7o4vFj7j3U13@mid.individual.net>, > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > ... > >Surely clarity is in the eye of the beholder and is therefore > >subjective? If you are looking for an objective definition of code > >clarity, you are on a fools errand. > > Indeed. I am always amused when people start pontificating about > "style/clarity/whatever" here, given the "mathematical certainty/if it's > not in the standards documents, it's crap" attitude that is otherwise > prevalent here. > Yes, you can do empirical tests on what human programmers find easy or difficult. Some of the results are surprising, in one experiment code with comments was found to be harder to interpret than code with the comments stripped out. However we can't relate most of the results to scientific fundamentals, and they don't necessarily apply beyond the experiment. Few real programmers are presented with arbitrary code, for example - mostly the code is part of a large program they've been working on for many months, or at least within their domain of expertise - statistical functions, or 3D graphics code, or database query code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Randy Howard <rhoward.mx@EverybodyUsesIt.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 10:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nana09$1tv8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #82622 |
On 2/25/16 1:17 AM, Ian Collins wrote: > Tim Rentsch wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> >>> On 18/02/16 17:35, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> I think it makes code (such as the example above) less clear, and it >>> makes it harder to be sure that the code is correct. >> >> This sentence is one of those statements that doesn't really say >> anything. Whether you like something is a subjective statement. >> Whether you think something is clear, or hard to understand, is a >> subjective statement. What I'm hoping for is some sort of >> objective reasoning, not just (re-)statements of personal opinion. > > Surely clarity is in the eye of the beholder and is therefore > subjective? If you are looking for an objective definition of code > clarity, you are on a fools errand. The nice thing about that approach though, no matter what the response, if it disagrees with your own, you can always complain that it's subjective. -- Randy Howard (replace the obvious text in the obvious way if you wish to contact me directly)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 09:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <kfntwkqnlea.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #82663 |
Randy Howard <rhoward.mx@EverybodyUsesIt.com> writes: > On 2/25/16 1:17 AM, Ian Collins wrote: >> Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>> >>>> On 18/02/16 17:35, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>> I think it makes code (such as the example above) less clear, and it >>>> makes it harder to be sure that the code is correct. >>> >>> This sentence is one of those statements that doesn't really say >>> anything. Whether you like something is a subjective statement. >>> Whether you think something is clear, or hard to understand, is a >>> subjective statement. What I'm hoping for is some sort of >>> objective reasoning, not just (re-)statements of personal opinion. >> >> Surely clarity is in the eye of the beholder and is therefore >> subjective? If you are looking for an objective definition of code >> clarity, you are on a fools errand. > > The nice thing about that approach though, no matter what the > response, if it disagrees with your own, you can always complain that > it's subjective. To my way of thinking this statement is nonsensical. If what is being offered is merely a personal view, there is no sense in agreeing or disagreeing with it; the speaker is the ultimate authority on his or her own opinions, and for all practical purposes any statement of opinion can be treated as a fact. As for whether a particular statement is an objective statement or a subjective one, that is an objective question - a statement is objective if it can be confirmed (or disproven) by an independent outside observer. If all parties agree that such an observer can accurately determine the truth value of a given proposition then the proposition is an objective statement, and otherwise it isn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 09:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <kfny4a2nm75.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #82622 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: > Tim Rentsch wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> >>> On 18/02/16 17:35, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 28/11/15 23:39, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> [giving an example re-writing] >>>>>> >>>>>> for (int i = 0; i < nb; i++, ch <<= 6) >>>>>> ch += (unsigned char)*utf8++; >>>>> >>>>> I never like using the comma operator. [...] >>>> >>>> Is there some sort of underlying reasoning that motivates that >>>> reaction? Or is it just personal bias? >>> >>> I think it makes code (such as the example above) less clear, and it >>> makes it harder to be sure that the code is correct. >> >> This sentence is one of those statements that doesn't really say >> anything. Whether you like something is a subjective statement. >> Whether you think something is clear, or hard to understand, is a >> subjective statement. What I'm hoping for is some sort of >> objective reasoning, not just (re-)statements of personal opinion. > > Surely clarity is in the eye of the beholder and is therefore > subjective? If you are looking for an objective definition of code > clarity, you are on a fools errand. What I am looking for is David Brown's reasons, either objective or subjective, that he never likes using the comma operator. My hope is that at least some of those reasons will be objective, because then I expect to learn something. Conversely, if all of them are purely subjective, I don't learn anything. Saying he doesn't like it, he thinks it makes code less clear, he thinks it makes it harder to read, he thinks it makes code less obvious (which he did not say, but just as an example), etc, all amount to the same thing from my point of view - they might tell me something about David Brown, but they don't tell me anything about anyone else or inherent in the comma operator itself. Incidentally, I believe the issue raised in your first sentence is a larger and more complicated topic than the question itself suggests, but since it doesn't really bear on my response I will leave that discussion for another day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 10:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87aa9599-3e1a-40d4-a577-61595ac074a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #82876 |
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 5:27:06 PM UTC, Tim Rentsch wrote: > > What I am looking for is David Brown's reasons, either objective > or subjective, that he never likes using the comma operator. My > hope is that at least some of those reasons will be objective, > because then I expect to learn something. > It's hard to make objective claims about human psychology. I claimed that humans cannot deal with more than three levels of indirection, nesting, parentheses and so on, on the basis that we live in a three dimensional world. You can't have a more objective, irrefutable observation than that. But some people simply said that, no problem, they can visualise the relationships. So there's no real answer to that, other than setting up experiments, which are notoriously difficult to get right. Clearly, comma operators can be used to create correct programming constructs. Clearly, C is Turing complete without them. That's the end of the objective observations. Everything else is "I find the syntax difficult, the programs hard to follow". To my mind that's pretty obviously the case, except in a few limited places in for loops, the comma operator is a readability nightmare. But if someone simply asserts the opposite, you have to set up the experiments to refute him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 11:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnfuwavx8r.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #82881 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 5:27:06 PM UTC, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> What I am looking for is David Brown's reasons, either objective
>> or subjective, that he never likes using the comma operator. My
>> hope is that at least some of those reasons will be objective,
>> because then I expect to learn something.
>>
> It's hard to make objective claims about human psychology.
> I claimed that humans cannot deal with more than three levels of
> indirection, nesting, parentheses and so on, on the basis that we
> live in a three dimensional world. You can't have a more objective,
> irrefutable observation than that.
Are you being serious?
Your claim that the number of levels if nesting humas can deal with is
tied to the number of apparent spacial dimensions we live in is an
extraordinary claim. Calling that claim "objective" and "irrefutable"
is complete nonsense.
[...]
--
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 | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 11:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e728fe34-0b43-46ed-b3bc-1b921437e301@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #82887 |
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 7:01:19 PM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > Your claim that the number of levels if nesting humas can deal with is > tied to the number of apparent spacial dimensions we live in is an > extraordinary claim. Calling that claim "objective" and "irrefutable" > is complete nonsense. > A three dimensional array is int cells[width][height][depth]; If we go to 4 dimensions, we can use time as an expedient, but basically we've run out of things a human can visualise. Now a triple pointer Cell ***cptr; is how we pass about that structure by indirection, allowing for ragged entries. it follows that Cell ****cptr; is too much. Now parentheses are another notation for nesting, which is the same as multiple levels of indirection. If we have a struct node, with a child member, node->child ppints to the child, node->child->child points to the grandchild, and node->child-> child->child points to the great grandchild. Then we run out of English words, we just add "great". So again, it's three levels. Try using "next" and "child" and combinations, such that node->next = "brother", node->next->next = '2nd brother", node->next->child = "nephew" and so on. See how complicated an expression you can parse and still get the right answer, without resorting to strategies like counting. However the irrefutable claim is that the world has three dimensions. A physicist will now attack.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 12:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ln7fhmvtth.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #82891 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 7:01:19 PM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Your claim that the number of levels if nesting humas can deal with is
>> tied to the number of apparent spacial dimensions we live in is an
>> extraordinary claim. Calling that claim "objective" and "irrefutable"
>> is complete nonsense.
>>
> A three dimensional array is
>
> int cells[width][height][depth];
>
> If we go to 4 dimensions, we can use time as an expedient, but basically we've
> run out of things a human can visualise.
That matters only if the array is visualized as a physical shape in
three-dimensional space. Not everything is like that.
> Now a triple pointer
>
> Cell ***cptr;
>
> is how we pass about that structure by indirection, allowing for ragged entries.
> it follows that
>
> Cell ****cptr; is too much.
A claim with nothing to back it up.
> Now parentheses are another notation for nesting, which is the same as multiple
> levels of indirection. If we have a struct node, with a child member, node->child
> ppints to the child, node->child->child points to the grandchild, and node->child->
> child->child points to the great grandchild. Then we run out of English words,
> we just add "great". So again, it's three levels.
And that's tied to the number of spacial dimensions? Riiight.
> Try using "next" and "child" and combinations, such that node->next = "brother",
> node->next->next = '2nd brother", node->next->child = "nephew" and so
> on. See how complicated an expression you can parse and still get the right
> answer, without resorting to strategies like counting.
You've repeated your claim but offered no evidence.
> However the irrefutable claim is that the world has three dimensions.
Nope. But even if that were true, *your* claim is that there is a
fundamental relationship between the number of spacial dimensions and
the number of nesting levels humans can handle. Even if both numbers
happened to be 3, I see no reason to believe that they're connected.
I live in a house, on a street, in a neighborhood, in a city, in a
county, in a state, in a country, on a continent, on a planet. Please
don't presume to tell me that's beyond my comprehension.
> A physicist will now attack.
A physicist would probably just chuckle.
--
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 | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 12:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <804e22eb-d402-41c0-bc98-3c13135f4482@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #82895 |
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 8:15:18 PM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> Try using "next" and "child" and combinations, such that >> node->next = "brother", node->next->next = '2nd brother", >> node->next->child = "nephew" and so on. See how complicated >> an expression you can parse and still get the right answer, >> without resorting to strategies like counting. > You've repeated your claim but offered no evidence. > I've proposed an experiment that you could perform, without a huge amount of resources. Then you can see whether or not I'm right. > Nope. But even if that were true, *your* claim is that there is a > fundamental relationship between the number of spacial dimensions and > the number of nesting levels humans can handle. Even if both numbers > happened to be 3, I see no reason to believe that they're connected. > A 2D array is a 1D list of 1D arrays, so nesting. And arrays with three levels of nesting are intimately connected to models of solids.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 15:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nb70jq$dhm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #82895 |
On 01/03/16 20:15, Keith Thompson wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: <snip> >> However the irrefutable claim is that the world has three dimensions. > > Nope. But even if that were true, *your* claim is that there is a > fundamental relationship between the number of spacial dimensions and > the number of nesting levels humans can handle. Even if both numbers > happened to be 3, I see no reason to believe that they're connected. > > I live in a house, on a street, in a neighborhood, in a city, in a > county, in a state, in a country, on a continent, on a planet. Please > don't presume to tell me that's beyond my comprehension. Of course not, but I'm not sure whether that's a good illustration of a multidimensional array. The point about dimensions is that they are (and I have to be careful how I use this word!) orthogonal to each other, rather than hierarchical (although of course the dimension number could be considered an hierarchy in some sense). Perhaps a better example of a multidimensional space would be something like this: [clockspeed][num usb ports][colour][network card speed][hard disk size] Okay, so that 5D array would be fairly sparse, but that doesn't matter particularly. What /does/ matter is that it isn't even remotely difficult to envisage five independent facts about an object. -- 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 | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 14:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5b2a6f77-8b53-48bf-a9d1-7a598edcc8fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #82975 |
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 3:27:55 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > Perhaps a better example of a multidimensional space would be something > like this: > [clockspeed][num usb ports][colour][network card speed][hard disk size] > > Okay, so that 5D array would be fairly sparse, but that doesn't matter > particularly. What /does/ matter is that it isn't even remotely > difficult to envisage five independent facts about an object. > Exactly. Normally such a sparse array would be represented as a 2D array Computer clockspeed Nusb colour network disksize ZX81 2MHz 0 no 400 baud 1.4MB BBC 4Mhz 0 yes 1200 baud 1.4MB 386 25Mhz 0 no 3,600 baud 40MB and so on. You could represent as points in 5 dimensional space, but then it's hard to visualise and a lot of space is wasted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 23:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nb7t6u$a2t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #83041 |
On 02/03/16 22:41, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 3:27:55 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>> What /does/ matter is that it isn't even remotely
>> difficult to envisage five independent facts about an object.
>>
> Exactly. Normally such a sparse array would be represented as a 2D array
>
It is possible to represent /anything/ as a 2D array or even a 1D array,
but you're missing the point. A 5D array allows me to do this:
for(i = 0; i < imax; i++)
{
for(j = 0; j < jmax; j++)
{
for(k = 0; k < kmax; k++)
{
printf("%d\n", arr[i][17][j][k][4]);
}
}
}
which would not be /impossible/ with a 2D array (or even a 1D array, but
would be much less convenient, notationally speaking.
> You could represent as points in 5 dimensional space, but then it's
> hard to visualise and a lot of space is wasted.
Forget spatial dimensions, and the difficulty of visualisation vanishes.
Think of a dimension as a characteristic that is orthogonal to other
characteristics, and everything becomes very, very simple.
If you insist on 'dimension' meaning 'one of: height, breadth, width',
then you miss a great deal of the flexibility of dimensional notation,
even if we're only talking about spatial dimensions. For example,
fractal curves have fractional dimensions, which don't make sense in a
'height/breadth/width' view of dimensionality, but /do/ make sense if
you take a broader view of what a dimension actually /is/.
Let me give you a slightly different example. Consider a warehouse that
has ten aisles. Each aisle consists of eight racks. Each rack has four
levels. Each level is divided into three sublevels vertically, and these
each have four horizontal divisions. Every division contains five boxes.
Each box contains an arbitrary number of widgets. The number of these
widgets can be tracked using an array like this:
widget_count[10][8][4][3][4][5]
That's a six-dimensional array, and it's easy to visualise. QED.
--
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 | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 16:44 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <djpq9bFaovgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #83041 |
Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 3:27:55 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> >> Perhaps a better example of a multidimensional space would be something >> like this: >> [clockspeed][num usb ports][colour][network card speed][hard disk size] >> >> Okay, so that 5D array would be fairly sparse, but that doesn't matter >> particularly. What /does/ matter is that it isn't even remotely >> difficult to envisage five independent facts about an object. >> > Exactly. Normally such a sparse array would be represented as a 2D array Normally? Where do you get that from? In other languages (that support associative arrays) I often use structures similar to Richards example above. One of my applications has a JSON blob representing the system's device tree which extends to many levels. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 01:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c468c236-02cd-461c-8c91-8b02b8574bb0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #83058 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:44:52 AM UTC, Ian Collins wrote: > Malcolm McLean wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 3:27:55 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote: > >> > >> Perhaps a better example of a multidimensional space would be something > >> like this: > >> [clockspeed][num usb ports][colour][network card speed][hard disk size] > >> > >> Okay, so that 5D array would be fairly sparse, but that doesn't matter > >> particularly. What /does/ matter is that it isn't even remotely > >> difficult to envisage five independent facts about an object. > >> > > Exactly. Normally such a sparse array would be represented as a 2D array > > Normally? Where do you get that from? > > In other languages (that support associative arrays) I often use > structures similar to Richards example above. One of my applications > has a JSON blob representing the system's device tree which extends to > many levels. > Statistics packages, like R for example. If you got a list of computers with associated data (name, clock speed, number usb ports, colour, network card speed, hard disk size, etc) then what you do is set them up as a "data frame". That's a 2 dimensional structure, but each column is allowed a different type. However if you do, say a principal components analysis, or a clustering based an Euclidean distance, you have to expand to five dimensions, each row becomes a point in 5D space rather than en entry in a 2D table. With trees, typically when showing them to the user, you allow nodes to be collapsed or expanded, to keep the visual complexity down. With flat lists, you don't, you present in a scroll window, but only occasionally do you allow filters (show all entries with the suffix .txt).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 13:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ln37s9x5u3.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #82891 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 7:01:19 PM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>>
>> Your claim that the number of levels if nesting humas can deal with is
>> tied to the number of apparent spacial dimensions we live in is an
>> extraordinary claim. Calling that claim "objective" and "irrefutable"
>> is complete nonsense.
>>
> A three dimensional array is
>
> int cells[width][height][depth];
>
> If we go to 4 dimensions, we can use time as an expedient, but basically we've
> run out of things a human can visualise.
>
> Now a triple pointer
>
> Cell ***cptr;
>
> is how we pass about that structure by indirection, allowing for ragged entries.
Something I missed before: given your declaration
int cells[width][height][depth];
a Cell*** (what is type Cell anyway?) cannot be used with the array
"cells". You're mixing up actual multidimensional arrays (which are
just arrays of arrays) with pointer-based data structures.
> it follows that
>
> Cell ****cptr; is too much.
Personally I have some trouble with Cell*** or int*** -- unless there's
enough context for it to make sense. The dividing line between
"obvious" and "difficult" isn't between 3 and 4; it's probably somewhere
between 2 and 3 without context, or perhaps substantially higher with
enough context. Typedefs can sometimes be helpful.
[...]
--
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 | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 19:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87oaay6kg5.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #82887 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: > Your claim that the number of levels if nesting humas can deal with is > tied to the number of apparent spacial dimensions we live in is an > extraordinary claim. Calling that claim "objective" and "irrefutable" > is complete nonsense. Keith, its Malcolm... Making, and the defending (frequently very badly) extraordinary unsupportable idiotic claims is pretty much his defining tendency.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 23:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nb540a$hmk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #82881 |
On 01/03/16 19:08, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 5:27:06 PM UTC, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> >> What I am looking for is David Brown's reasons, either objective >> or subjective, that he never likes using the comma operator. My >> hope is that at least some of those reasons will be objective, >> because then I expect to learn something. >> > It's hard to make objective claims about human psychology. > I claimed that humans cannot deal with more than three levels of > indirection, nesting, parentheses and so on, on the basis that we > live in a three dimensional world. You can't have a more objective, > irrefutable observation than that. But some people simply said that, > no problem, they can visualise the relationships. So there's no > real answer to that, other than setting up experiments, which are > notoriously difficult to get right. The first claim is that "humans cannot deal with more than three levels of indirection, nesting, parentheses, and so on". This is clearly and obviously false, as anyone who has used more than three levels of anything can testify. I won't disagree that going to more than three levels of many things gets disproportionally harder than using three or less - an expression with more than three levels of parenthesis is likely to be quite hard to follow. But I disagree that there is a fixed line, or that the line would be at "three" on many different things. And certainly it is not an objective or irrefutable claim, nor would it be /that/ hard to quantify experimentally. The second claim is that we live in a three dimensional world. In some important aspects, that is true - we often deal with x, y, and z spatial coordinates. But we spend a significant amount of our time in two dimensions - writing on a page, things on a computer screen. And sometimes we think in one dimension - the time axis for music. Sometimes we think in four dimensions - position in space combined with time. Sometimes we think in six dimensions - position in space combined with three rotational angles. There are many combinations. Personally, I used to enjoy playing four-dimensional knots-and-crosses at school - some people found it hard, other people found it quite natural. Your third claim is that the first claim follows objectively and irrefutably from the second claim. Since the first claim is absolute nonsense, and the second claim is at least partially nonsense, there is no way the third claim could be true. And even if the first two claims were completely true, there is still not the slightest hint or justification for the third claim - coincidence does not imply causation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 10:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <kfntwkkkcba.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #82881 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 5:27:06 PM UTC, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> What I am looking for is David Brown's reasons, either objective >> or subjective, that he never likes using the comma operator. My >> hope is that at least some of those reasons will be objective, >> because then I expect to learn something. > > It's hard to make objective claims about human psychology. I > claimed that humans cannot deal with more than three levels of > indirection, nesting, parentheses and so on, on the basis that > we live in a three dimensional world. You can't have a more > objective, irrefutable observation than that. But some people > simply said that, no problem, they can visualise the > relationships. So there's no real answer to that, other than > setting up experiments, which are notoriously difficult to get > right. I think you have misunderstood my comment. I just want to know what the reasons are (and whether they are purely subjective, or otherwise). I'm not asking for any supporting evidence, I just want to know what the underlying rationale is. > Clearly, comma operators can be used to create correct programming > constructs. Clearly, C is Turing complete without them. That's > the end of the objective observations. Everything else is "I find > the syntax difficult, the programs hard to follow". [...] I find it astonishing that anyone would say that. It's clearly and obviously false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 23:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nb537i$el3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #82876 |
On 01/03/16 18:26, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: > >> Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>> >>>> On 18/02/16 17:35, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 28/11/15 23:39, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> [giving an example re-writing] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> for (int i = 0; i < nb; i++, ch <<= 6) >>>>>>> ch += (unsigned char)*utf8++; >>>>>> >>>>>> I never like using the comma operator. [...] >>>>> >>>>> Is there some sort of underlying reasoning that motivates that >>>>> reaction? Or is it just personal bias? >>>> >>>> I think it makes code (such as the example above) less clear, and it >>>> makes it harder to be sure that the code is correct. >>> >>> This sentence is one of those statements that doesn't really say >>> anything. Whether you like something is a subjective statement. >>> Whether you think something is clear, or hard to understand, is a >>> subjective statement. What I'm hoping for is some sort of >>> objective reasoning, not just (re-)statements of personal opinion. >> >> Surely clarity is in the eye of the beholder and is therefore >> subjective? If you are looking for an objective definition of code >> clarity, you are on a fools errand. > > What I am looking for is David Brown's reasons, either objective > or subjective, that he never likes using the comma operator. My > hope is that at least some of those reasons will be objective, > because then I expect to learn something. Conversely, if all of > them are purely subjective, I don't learn anything. Saying he > doesn't like it, he thinks it makes code less clear, he thinks it > makes it harder to read, he thinks it makes code less obvious > (which he did not say, but just as an example), etc, all amount > to the same thing from my point of view - they might tell me > something about David Brown, but they don't tell me anything > about anyone else or inherent in the comma operator itself. I posted some reasons in a different reply. I presume you'll get to it sooner or later - and I hope it gives you some insights into why I dislike the comma operator. In the end, it is a dislike - a subjective view - but in my mind at least there are some solid reasons for the dislike. > > Incidentally, I believe the issue raised in your first sentence > is a larger and more complicated topic than the question itself > suggests, but since it doesn't really bear on my response I will > leave that discussion for another day. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 01:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7a17f071-2510-43f2-9b3e-dc948ac98210@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #82612 |
W dniu czwartek, 25 lutego 2016 01:28:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Tim Rentsch napisał:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>
> > On 18/02/16 17:35, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> >>
> >>> On 28/11/15 23:39, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>> [giving an example re-writing]
> >>>>
> >>>> for (int i = 0; i < nb; i++, ch <<= 6)
> >>>> ch += (unsigned char)*utf8++;
> >>>
> >>> I never like using the comma operator. [...]
> >>
> >> Is there some sort of underlying reasoning that motivates that
> >> reaction? Or is it just personal bias?
> >
> > I think it makes code (such as the example above) less clear, and it
> > makes it harder to be sure that the code is correct.
>
> This sentence is one of those statements that doesn't really say
> anything. Whether you like something is a subjective statement.
> Whether you think something is clear, or hard to understand, is a
> subjective statement. What I'm hoping for is some sort of
> objective reasoning, not just (re-)statements of personal opinion.
>
> > When looking at
> > a loop, it is important to understand the entry state, the iteration,
> > and the exit condition in order to be confident that it does what you
> > want.
>
> Sure.
>
> > Making any of these parts unnecessarily complicated hinders that
> > analysis.
>
> Same problem as the first sentence - "unnecessarily complicated"
> is a subjective measure.
>
> > To me, the "ch <<= 6" part should not be part of the loop
> > control, but inside the loop body.
>
> You think that. The person who wrote it may think of it as being
> part of the iteration. Do you think it is _never_ appropriate
> to write loops that have multiple iteration actions? And more
> importantly, if you do, what reasoning explains that reaction?
>
> > I also object to the comma operator in general because it does a
> > strange thing - it evaluates an expression, then ignores the result,
> > while being part of a bigger expression. Obviously you often ignore
> > the results of an expression as expression statements.
>
> I don't know why you think of it as strange. Expressions in the
> first and third clauses of a 'for()' clause are executed purely
> for effect and not for value, but they are expressions, not
> statements. Having multiple actions in those places is not
> very much different than having multiple statements in a block.
>
> > But with the
> > comma operator, I see no advantages in write "x = y, z;" instead of
> > "y; x = z;".
>
> (Corrected to "x = (y, z);".) There are several. First the
> context may not allow writing a statement, but would allow use
> of a comma operator. Most commonly this situation occurs with
> loops or if()'s, but may occur other places (eg, expressions in
> an initializer). Second the context may allow multiple actions
> to be written as statements but there is some sort of collateral
> benefit (eg, alignment of parallel constructions) to write those
> using a comma operator instead. Third, in some cases a series
> of simple expressions could be written as statements, but
> instead comma operators are used to indicate a conceptual
> grouping that the author considers it useful to express. The
> third case has an analogy in regular English with semicolon. In
> most cases sentences are written as stand-alone units and ended
> with a dot; in some cases though it helps to join two related
> sentences with a semicolon. The use of comma operators is
> very much (in certain cases) just like the use of semicolons
> in regular prose. Certainly all C programs can be written
> without using any comma operators, just as all monographs can be
> written without using any semicolons. But making use of comma
> operators (and semicolons) allows more faithful expression of
> the author's intent. Surely there is some value in that.
>
> > And for anyone familiar with languages with a more natural use of
> > comma, such as Python, the C comma operator is confusing. In
> > Python, to swap a and b you write "a, b = b, a". In Python, this
> > means replace the objects a and b with b and a respectively. In
> > C, this means "take a, evaluate for side-effects, then throw the
> > result away. Evaluate b = b for side-effects, and throw the
> > result away. Evaluate a for side-effects again, and throw away
> > the result".
>
> I program in Python, and also other languages where comma means
> something different than it does in C. I have no trouble
> keeping the different uses straight, nor have I ever seen such
> confusion in any other experienced programmer. In my view
> anyone who remains confused on this sort of minor point either
> shouldn't be programming in the first place, or just isn't
> trying. Do you have any kind of response to that statement?
>
> > "Do not use the comma operator" is a rule that is common in
> > programming standards, so I am not alone in my dislike for it.
>
> I realize that's true, but that's not a reason. I'm looking for
> something more than just a statement of opinion, and there can be
> collective opinion just as there is individual opinion. I don't
> remember ever seeing any rationale for not using comma operators
> that didn't boil down to just opinion or circular explanations.
> This motivates me to ask about it.
>
> > Equally, of course, there are lots of people that /do/ use the
> > comma operator - including some who are happy with it in some
> > circumstances, and not in others.
>
> Let me say something I should have stressed at the beginning,
> which is I'm not trying to challenge your views or get you to
> change your mind. I'm just trying to understand why you think
> what you do think.
as to a,b = c, a
(which i proposed as a c/c2 sugar long time ago, (also wit a,b=f(c,a) and many other good things )
this kind of "," usage is a part of some Virtua language (lets call it V, good name for that ), here in c we talk on the ","
as it is in c - so it is a bit big gap to mix one wit another
a,b = c, a is also to some extent doubtfull
(though dont looking bad), As i said the most 'doubtfull' operators I know are just comma and space (wit nospace, and multispace whose dont necessary must be treating like space)
C uses it other way, some lamers dont even knew how it works where they try teach in the same this is 'unclear, (this is stupidity i cannot stand) for me as i said "," in c is fine in handy, though im sorry it 'breaks' in some cases where it could be slightly redefined and continue to work in larger cases
in general it could be used to turn {a;b;c;}
into a,b,c; imo - The return value defined as a last one (or the last that returns the value) seems roughly ok - this only shows maybe that such blocks as {a,b} could also return a value , and probably if statements could also return a value
int a = if(a) 2; else 3;
it wouldnt bring any harm probably and could be used
btw, does
int a =2;
return value? Im not sure..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 39 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web