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 7 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 39 Next page →
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 23:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncsitt$i5d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84711 |
On 22/03/2016 22:47, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 22/03/16 22:28, BartC wrote:
>> But if I write in C:
>>
>> for (i=1; j<=10; ++k) printf ("%d %f\n",i,sqrt(i));
>>
>> the compiler doesn't so much as raise an eyebrow.
>
> Why should it? That's legal C.
That's exactly the problem. Sometimes constraints are good. Any human
looking at that carefully (as he will do after the code doesn't work)
will spot the problem. The compiler can't.
>> Apparently there's nothing wrong with this code!
>
> How do you draw that conclusion? Do you really believe that a program is
> correct if it doesn't produce a diagnostic message? If that were the
> case, it would be very easy to write an office suite. You could just
> write: int main(void) { return 0; } and expect the compiler to guess
> what you meant to happen. C doesn't work like that. C expects you to
> know what you're doing. If you don't know what you're doing, C might not
> be the best language for you.
You're right, it isn't. Not for manually writing in anyway.
(These days I write: 'for i:=1 to 10 do...' and a translator produces:
'for (i=1; i<=10; ++i) ...'. It knows that, even though I only wrote 'i'
once, the C version requires three identical copies. But strangely, the
C compiler itself doesn't know that!)
>> Which one did you say was brain-dead again?
>
> The BASIC for-loop is very constrained in how it can be used. The C
> for-loop is much more flexible and powerful.
Like 'if' and 'goto' then, but the problems of missing using those are
more obvious.
>> As C's for-statement is just
>> an empty shell.
>
> It's a tool. It's a powerful tool, and one that you have to use
> carefully, but you can achieve a lot with it.
It wouldn't be so bad if they had two for statements: one simple one
that I prefer, and another for people to write more convoluted loops.
>> (Although that was wasn't my complaint, which was misusing it for things
>> other than straightforward A to B or 0..N-1 loops.)
>
> "Using it in a way that BartC doesn't like" and "misusing it" are not
> synonymous, much as you might prefer to think otherwise.
Think about where the 'for' keyword may have originated from. Given what
it mostly seems to be used as, they might have done better to have
called it 'while', and discarded what is now the while statement:
while (i=0; i<n; ++i) ....
When you really do want a basic while, just write 'while (;cond;)' or
the compiler might allow both semicolons to be dropped.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 16:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnd1qm84ed.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #84713 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 22/03/2016 22:47, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 22/03/16 22:28, BartC wrote:
>>> But if I write in C:
>>>
>>> for (i=1; j<=10; ++k) printf ("%d %f\n",i,sqrt(i));
>>>
>>> the compiler doesn't so much as raise an eyebrow.
>>
>> Why should it? That's legal C.
>
> That's exactly the problem. Sometimes constraints are good. Any human
> looking at that carefully (as he will do after the code doesn't work)
> will spot the problem. The compiler can't.
Do you have the same complaint about this?
if (i >= 1 && j <= 10)
C's for loop is more flexible than, say, the version you find in BASIC.
You can do more things with it -- some of which may be incorrect.
In comparison to a hypothetical version of the for loop like, perhaps,
for (i, 1, 100)
C's for loop is only slightly more verbose, substantially more flexible,
and perhaps a bit more error-prone. I think that's a good tradeoff.
[...]
> Think about where the 'for' keyword may have originated from. Given what
> it mostly seems to be used as, they might have done better to have
> called it 'while', and discarded what is now the while statement:
>
> while (i=0; i<n; ++i) ....
>
> When you really do want a basic while, just write 'while (;cond;)' or
> the compiler might allow both semicolons to be dropped.
Sounds like it might be a great idea for some language other than C.
But seriously, would calling the keyword "while" rather than "for"
really alleviate your concern? Is your complaint that trivial?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 00:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncso2e$1i8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84718 |
On 22/03/2016 23:43, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> Think about where the 'for' keyword may have originated from. Given what >> it mostly seems to be used as, they might have done better to have >> called it 'while', and discarded what is now the while statement: >> >> while (i=0; i<n; ++i) .... >> >> When you really do want a basic while, just write 'while (;cond;)' or >> the compiler might allow both semicolons to be dropped. > > Sounds like it might be a great idea for some language other than C. No, it's specially a good idea for C. > But seriously, would calling the keyword "while" rather than "for" > really alleviate your concern? Is your complaint that trivial? It would certainly make it clearer that C's 'for' isn't a for-statement as normally understood in other languages (where you specify start and end points, or a sequence to iterate over, and the language looks after the intermediate steps). It's an embellished while-loop, which can be used to crudely emulate a for-statement. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 20:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ncsooc$35m$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #84722 |
On 3/22/2016 8:33 PM, BartC wrote: > On 22/03/2016 23:43, Keith Thompson wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>> Think about where the 'for' keyword may have originated from. Given what >>> it mostly seems to be used as, they might have done better to have >>> called it 'while', and discarded what is now the while statement: >>> >>> while (i=0; i<n; ++i) .... >>> >>> When you really do want a basic while, just write 'while (;cond;)' or >>> the compiler might allow both semicolons to be dropped. >> >> Sounds like it might be a great idea for some language other than C. > > No, it's specially a good idea for C. > >> But seriously, would calling the keyword "while" rather than "for" >> really alleviate your concern? Is your complaint that trivial? > > It would certainly make it clearer that C's 'for' isn't a for-statement > as normally understood in other languages (where you specify start and > end points, or a sequence to iterate over, and the language looks after > the intermediate steps). > > It's an embellished while-loop, which can be used to crudely emulate a > for-statement. > When you get right down to it, ANY for loop is an embellished while loop. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 01:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncsq97$79d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84723 |
On 23/03/2016 00:44, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 3/22/2016 8:33 PM, BartC wrote:
>> It would certainly make it clearer that C's 'for' isn't a for-statement
>> as normally understood in other languages (where you specify start and
>> end points, or a sequence to iterate over, and the language looks after
>> the intermediate steps).
>>
>> It's an embellished while-loop, which can be used to crudely emulate a
>> for-statement.
>>
>
> When you get right down to it, ANY for loop is an embellished while loop.
Behind the scenes perhaps, where you can't see the joins. So you write:
for x in A {S}
in some languages, and that's it. You don't need to write:
temp = 0;
while (temp<sizeof(A)/sizeof(A[0]) {
x = A[temp];
S;
++temp;
}
or, still trying to pretend this is a for-loop rather than a
rearrangement of a while-loop:
for (temp=0; temp<sizeof(A)/sizeof(A[0]); ++temp) {
x=A[temp];
S;
}
(Compare how much you have to write compared to the original, and how
much you can now get wrong. And I actually did get it wrong, but noticed
just in time!)
But maybe C should be commended for being so transparent. And, of
course, flexible.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 01:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87r3f2kmvz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #84724 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 23/03/2016 00:44, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
<snip>
>> When you get right down to it, ANY for loop is an embellished while loop.
>
> Behind the scenes perhaps, where you can't see the joins. So you write:
>
> for x in A {S}
>
> in some languages, and that's it. You don't need to write:
>
> temp = 0;
> while (temp<sizeof(A)/sizeof(A[0]) {
> x = A[temp];
> S;
> ++temp;
> }
Sure, and in some languages the correspondence is purely theoretical
making the for loop much more than an embellished while. In AWK, for
example, iterating though an associative array (for (i in A) ...) does
not correspond to any while loop you'd ever be able to use.
<snip>
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 05:30 +0000 |
| Subject | AWK's 'for' loop (Was: Aargh! Don't do this!) |
| Message-ID | <nct9l6$1if$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #84729 |
In article <87r3f2kmvz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
...
>Sure, and in some languages the correspondence is purely theoretical
>making the for loop much more than an embellished while. In AWK, for
>example, iterating though an associative array (for (i in A) ...) does
>not correspond to any while loop you'd ever be able to use.
(I'm not sure what point you are/were trying to make by bringing this up,
but since you mentioned my favorite programming language, I feel I must
comment...)
Actually, AWK's 'for' loop corresponds to:
idx = getfirstindex(); /* Assume this returns NULL on error (eof) */
while (idx != NULL) {
/* do stuff with idx and the associated array element */
idx = getnextindex(); /* Assume this returns NULL on error (eof) */
}
--
Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
- Napoleon Bonaparte -
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 08:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <44cac7b6-7b79-4d5c-911e-d005c22b3ab7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #84723 |
On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 7:45:10 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> When you get right down to it, ANY for loop is an embellished while loop.
Not necessarily. Some compilers may seek to optimize "for" and "while"
loops in different ways, especially if the authors believe that compilers
should subscribe to the Principle of Least Astonishment whether or not the
Standard requires it [a principle I would like to see return to the
culture]. Given that the vast majority of programs in many fields are
subject to a requirement that they must refrain from doing certain things
no matter what input they receive, there could be considerable benefit to
allowing programmers to give substantial freedom to compilers without giving
them total freedom.
For example, I would suggest that the vast majority of useful optimizations
that can be achieved by making integer overflow yield Undefined Behavior
could be achieved by having it yield Partially-Indeterminate results(*), but
there one additional freedom could enable some more useful optimizations:
allow a for-loop condition to arbitrarily be evaluated as false in cases
where an upcoming loop iteration would otherwise cause overflow. Such a
behavior could not be described in terms of any causal execution model, but
would be harmless in many real-world applications. Loops which would need
to run precisely as indicated even in the presence of overflow could be
written as "while" loops.
(*) Each evaluation of a 32-bit rvalue holding a Partially-Indeterminate
Value may independently yield a value that behaves as any mathematical
integer which is congruent to the stored value, mod 4294967296. Other
integer sizes would do likewise. On a system with a 16-bit int type,
after "int x=32767; x++;", x would hold a Partially-Indeterminate Value
which is congruent to -32768 (mod 65536). The statement "int32_t y=x;"
would cause y to hold a Partially-Indeterminate Value which is congruent
to to some fixed value (mod 4294967296), and that fixed value would be
congruent to -32768 (mod 65536) but otherwise Unspecified.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 23:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ncvnjr$gia$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #84746 |
On 3/23/2016 11:18 AM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 7:45:10 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> When you get right down to it, ANY for loop is an embellished while loop. > > Not necessarily. Some compilers may seek to optimize "for" and "while" > loops in different ways, especially if the authors believe that compilers > should subscribe to the Principle of Least Astonishment whether or not the > Standard requires it [a principle I would like to see return to the > culture]. Given that the vast majority of programs in many fields are > subject to a requirement that they must refrain from doing certain things > no matter what input they receive, there could be considerable benefit to > allowing programmers to give substantial freedom to compilers without giving > them total freedom. > Optimization does not preclude the fact that any for loop is an embellished while loop. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 18:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln8u1a809n.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #84722 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 22/03/2016 23:43, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> Think about where the 'for' keyword may have originated from. Given what
>>> it mostly seems to be used as, they might have done better to have
>>> called it 'while', and discarded what is now the while statement:
>>>
>>> while (i=0; i<n; ++i) ....
>>>
>>> When you really do want a basic while, just write 'while (;cond;)' or
>>> the compiler might allow both semicolons to be dropped.
>>
>> Sounds like it might be a great idea for some language other than C.
>
> No, it's specially a good idea for C.
A change that would break nearly every existing C program does not
strike me as a good idea.
>> But seriously, would calling the keyword "while" rather than "for"
>> really alleviate your concern? Is your complaint that trivial?
>
> It would certainly make it clearer that C's 'for' isn't a for-statement
> as normally understood in other languages (where you specify start and
> end points, or a sequence to iterate over, and the language looks after
> the intermediate steps).
It *is* a for loop. It's just not a for loop in the sense used in some
other languages. What makes BASIC's version right and C's wrong?
BTW, a number of other languages have adopted C-style for loops,
including of course C++ and Objective-C, but also Perl, the Bash shell,
and PHP.
C' for loop is more general and expressive than a while loop (though of
course any for loop can be translated to an equivalent while loop). It
encapsulates initialization, a continuation condition, and iteration
into one neat package. It lets you do the equivalent of a BASIC-style
FOR loop using an idiom that's recognized by any C programmer.
> It's an embellished while-loop, which can be used to crudely emulate a
> for-statement.
I see nothing crude about it.
If large numbers of C programmers have no problem with C-style for
loops, but you do, perhaps it's not C that has the problem.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 14:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncu99b$gb7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84726 |
On 23/03/2016 01:13, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> It would certainly make it clearer that C's 'for' isn't a for-statement >> as normally understood in other languages (where you specify start and >> end points, or a sequence to iterate over, and the language looks after >> the intermediate steps). > > It *is* a for loop. It's just not a for loop in the sense used in some > other languages. What makes BASIC's version right and C's wrong? The problem is that C's version has become so wide-spread that people are going to associate 'for' with that form. But going back a bit, one defining characteristic of what I call 'proper' for statements is that there is an official loop variable, which is also automatically compared with a limit and automatically stepped to the next value. Examples are Fortran (called 'do'), the Algols, PL/I, Cobol, Basic, Pascal, Ada, Lua, Python, Ruby, even Bash (Bash also has C's version). But in C, there is no official loop variable. There is no official anything. No automatic compare. No automatic compare operator. No automatic increment. for(A;B;C) is just a keyword and 3 statements/expressions. They can be anything. A sort of DIY kit of possibly an interative for, or possibly anything else. That's why I don't think highly of it. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 15:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncub09$mpf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84763 |
On 23/03/16 14:33, BartC wrote: > On 23/03/2016 01:13, Keith Thompson wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>> It would certainly make it clearer that C's 'for' isn't a for-statement >>> as normally understood in other languages (where you specify start and >>> end points, or a sequence to iterate over, and the language looks after >>> the intermediate steps). >> >> It *is* a for loop. It's just not a for loop in the sense used in some >> other languages. What makes BASIC's version right and C's wrong? > > The problem is that C's version has become so wide-spread that people > are going to associate 'for' with that form. Firstly, that's not a problem, because C's for-loop is better. Secondly, your objection seems to be that C's for-loop is used in so many languages that people now associate 'for' with C's for-loop, and that directly contradicts your claim that C's 'for' isn't a for-statement as normally understood in other languages. > But going back a bit, one defining characteristic of what I call > 'proper' for statements is that there is an official loop variable, > which is also automatically compared with a limit and automatically > stepped to the next value. What you call 'proper' for statements is entirely up to you, but you haven't yet explained /why/ your view is so compelling as to require everyone to change to it. All you've really said is that you prefer BASIC's for to C's for. Fine, that's your prerogative, and nobody is going to try to change your mind. (Well, some people will, but you don't have to listen.) But if you're proposing a fundamental change to C, you're going to have to be a lot more convincing, because a change to for-loop syntax will break just about every C program in existence. And if you're not proposing a fundamental change to C, aren't you really just bitching? And whilst it can be fun to bitch for a little while, don't you think you're overdoing it? <snip> > for(A;B;C) is just a keyword and 3 statements/expressions. They can be > anything. A sort of DIY kit of possibly an interative for, or possibly > anything else. > > That's why I don't think highly of it. And it's why I /do/ think highly of it. -- 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 | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 19:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncupf7$htb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84765 |
On 23/03/2016 15:02, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 23/03/16 14:33, BartC wrote: >> On 23/03/2016 01:13, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>>> It would certainly make it clearer that C's 'for' isn't a for-statement >>>> as normally understood in other languages (where you specify start and >>>> end points, or a sequence to iterate over, and the language looks after >>>> the intermediate steps). >>> >>> It *is* a for loop. It's just not a for loop in the sense used in some >>> other languages. What makes BASIC's version right and C's wrong? >> >> The problem is that C's version has become so wide-spread that people >> are going to associate 'for' with that form. > > Firstly, that's not a problem, because C's for-loop is better. It seems I may have to use an actual argument here. Probably at least 99% of the loops I use fall into a handful of patterns (endless loop, repeat N times, iterate from A to B, while, repeat (do-while), and iterate over values in a list). In the syntax I normally use, with its dedicated loop statements, in nearly every case I need to impart less information to make it work, then the C equivalent. This means more opportunity for error in C (in ways the language can't detect), plus more typing and less readability. Other people's coding patterns may be different, but it's hard to believe that the vast majority of loops in C don't fall into one of the same common set of patterns. You seem to be saying the cost of C's for statement is worth it for the flexibility and power, even if that power is rarely needed. (In the syntax I use, I have a set of very easy dedicated loop constructs. But I also have a loop that works like C's for, as I found out yesterday because I've never used it! The point though is that you can have both a complex loop statement, and a simple one.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 21:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncv11d$g1i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84774 |
On 23/03/2016 19:09, BartC wrote: > it's hard to > believe that the vast majority of loops in C don't fall into one of the > same common set of patterns. I've put some 2300 for-statements here (from 380Kloc of CPython and Sqlite sources): http://pastebin.com/mA6A10h4 On lines 1 to 200, and 1500 to 1550, I've marked with an asterisk those loops that look like simple iterations, or endless loops. Most of the rest could probably be ordinary while loops, but for some reason people like to obfuscate their code by using for loops for everthing. (I've done the same extraction on my own code, and it's so much easier on the eye. If it says it's a for-statement, then you're 100% certain it's simple iteration over two values.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 14:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnegb07tco.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #84776 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 23/03/2016 19:09, BartC wrote:
>> it's hard to
>> believe that the vast majority of loops in C don't fall into one of the
>> same common set of patterns.
>
> I've put some 2300 for-statements here (from 380Kloc of CPython and
> Sqlite sources):
>
> http://pastebin.com/mA6A10h4
>
> On lines 1 to 200, and 1500 to 1550, I've marked with an asterisk those
> loops that look like simple iterations, or endless loops.
>
> Most of the rest could probably be ordinary while loops, but for some
> reason people like to obfuscate their code by using for loops for everthing.
>
> (I've done the same extraction on my own code, and it's so much easier
> on the eye. If it says it's a for-statement, then you're 100% certain
> it's simple iteration over two values.)
It's easier on *your* eyes, not on mine.
If I see
for(i=0; i<view->ndim; i++) {
I'm equally certain that it's a simple iteration over a range of values
(even though I'd add a few spaces).
*I* don't find for loops obfuscated, nor do most C programmers. I'm
sorry you do, but obviously there's nothing I can do about that.
Are you willing to accept that most C programmers don't have the same
problem with for loops that you do, and that for us your proposal to
<loaded_word>cripple</loaded_word> C-style for loops would be a bad
thing? And that no such change will ever happen, because it would break
existing code?
I completely agree with you that *you* don't like C-style for loops.
Is there anything left to discuss on this particular topic?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 22:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4980d5ae-781d-45c3-954b-00cd6fd71b05@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #84777 |
On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 10:06:08 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote:
> If I see
>
> for(i=0; i<view->ndim; i++) {
>
> I'm equally certain that it's a simple iteration over a range of values
> (even though I'd add a few spaces).
Does "i" change within the loop? How do you know? What about view->ndim?
In many dialects of Basic, the sequence of values that will be iterated over
in the absence of an "exit" statement is set when the loop enters. In cases
where that wouldn't be desirable, it's necessary to use some other kind of
loop, but in cases where that matches the desired behavior one need not
study the body of a loop to know whether anything will modify the current
index, step size, or ending value (none of those things can be modified, so
none of them will be).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 22:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncv5v2$146$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84776 |
On 23/03/16 21:18, BartC wrote: <snip> > Most of the rest could probably be ordinary while loops, but for some > reason people like to obfuscate their code by using for loops for > everthing. Do you really, truly believe that people in this newsgroup use for() instead of while() because they want their code to be /harder/ to read? -- 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 | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 22:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncv5s1$146$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84774 |
On 23/03/16 19:09, BartC wrote:
> On 23/03/2016 15:02, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 23/03/16 14:33, BartC wrote:
<snip>
>>> The problem is that C's version has become so wide-spread that people
>>> are going to associate 'for' with that form.
>>
>> Firstly, that's not a problem, because C's for-loop is better.
>
> It seems I may have to use an actual argument here.
Not a bad idea. You should try it more often. :-)
> Probably at least 99% of the loops I use fall into a handful of patterns
> (endless loop, repeat N times, iterate from A to B, while, repeat
> (do-while), and iterate over values in a list).
>
> In the syntax I normally use, with its dedicated loop statements, in
> nearly every case I need to impart less information to make it work,
> then the C equivalent.
Okay. So your argument is that you only use for-loops in the way you are
used to, and when you use it only in those ways, you need to tell C more
than you need to tell some other languages. If you were the only user of
C in the whole world, that would indeed be a powerful argument.
But there are other C users, who use for-loops in other ways. I just
took a look at my own source base. These are /some/ of the for-patterns
I've used:
for(i = a; i < b; i++)
for(i = a; !done && b < k; i <<= 1)
for(i = a; i < b; i += c)
for(i = a; i < b - c; i++)
for(i = a + c; i < b; i++)
for(i = a; b == c && d == e && i < f; i++)
for(i = a, --j; i < j; i++, j--)
for(i = a, j = b; i <= c; i++)
for(i = a; arr_a[i] != c && arr_b[i] != c; i++)
for(i = a; arr[i] != b; i++)
for(i = a, j = b; c == d && i > e; i >>= 1, --j)
for(p = start; p != finish; p = p->next)
These are /patterns/ of for-loop usage, not actual for-loop code: each
one of the above represents a slightly different, or occasionally very
different, usage of for() that /is/ to be found in my source base, and
most of them are used quite a lot therein.
Process: find -name \*c | xargs grep "for *(" | sort > for.txt
Then I looked through for.txt for different patterns. Each time I found
a genuinely different pattern, I summarised it (see above list).
I only got a tenth the way through the file before I got bored of it and
gave up.
If you had your way, most of that code would be illegal. Thanks a bunch.
> This means more opportunity for error in C (in ways the language can't
> detect), plus more typing and less readability.
Powerful tools can be abused in powerful ways. If you can't refrain from
abusing them, refrain from using them. More typing? Go on a touch-typing
course. Less readable? I don't have a problem reading them.
> Other people's coding patterns may be different, but it's hard to
> believe that the vast majority of loops in C don't fall into one of the
> same common set of patterns.
Believe it.
> You seem to be saying the cost of C's for statement is worth it for the
> flexibility and power, even if that power is rarely needed.
I use it quite a bit, thank you.
> (In the syntax I use, I have a set of very easy dedicated loop
> constructs. But I also have a loop that works like C's for, as I found
> out yesterday because I've never used it! The point though is that you
> can have both a complex loop statement, and a simple one.)
The point is that they can be the same statement. If you want to do:
for(i = 0; i < n; i++)
nobody is going to stop you.
--
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 | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 00:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncvd1r$q2m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84778 |
On 23/03/2016 22:41, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 23/03/16 19:09, BartC wrote: >> Probably at least 99% of the loops I use fall into a handful of patterns > But there are other C users, who use for-loops in other ways. I just > took a look at my own source base. These are /some/ of the for-patterns > I've used: > > for(i = a; i < b; i++) > for(i = a; !done && b < k; i <<= 1) > for(i = a; i < b; i += c) > for(i = a; i < b - c; i++) > for(i = a + c; i < b; i++) > for(i = a; b == c && d == e && i < f; i++) > for(i = a, --j; i < j; i++, j--) > for(i = a, j = b; i <= c; i++) > for(i = a; arr_a[i] != c && arr_b[i] != c; i++) > for(i = a; arr[i] != b; i++) > for(i = a, j = b; c == d && i > e; i >>= 1, --j) > for(p = start; p != finish; p = p->next) > If you had your way, most of that code would be illegal. Thanks a bunch. After analysing those 12 patterns, I counted 5 'straight' for-loops and 7 ordinary while loops. So nothing desperately in need of C-for's flexibility unless you're keen to keep everything on one line. And 100% belong to my list of patterns (your code is more conservative than mine!) (How they might be expressed in a more crippled syntax: http://pastebin.com/ZGYrvJBB In this form, they don't need any analysis.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 00:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncvdn0$rl3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84780 |
On 24/03/16 00:43, BartC wrote: > On 23/03/2016 22:41, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 23/03/16 19:09, BartC wrote: > >>> Probably at least 99% of the loops I use fall into a handful of patterns > >> But there are other C users, who use for-loops in other ways. I just >> took a look at my own source base. These are /some/ of the for-patterns >> I've used: >> >> for(i = a; i < b; i++) >> for(i = a; !done && b < k; i <<= 1) >> for(i = a; i < b; i += c) >> for(i = a; i < b - c; i++) >> for(i = a + c; i < b; i++) >> for(i = a; b == c && d == e && i < f; i++) >> for(i = a, --j; i < j; i++, j--) >> for(i = a, j = b; i <= c; i++) >> for(i = a; arr_a[i] != c && arr_b[i] != c; i++) >> for(i = a; arr[i] != b; i++) >> for(i = a, j = b; c == d && i > e; i >>= 1, --j) >> for(p = start; p != finish; p = p->next) > >> If you had your way, most of that code would be illegal. Thanks a bunch. > > After analysing those 12 patterns, I counted 5 'straight' for-loops and > 7 ordinary while loops. I didn't see /any/ while-loops. They're all straight for-loops, but they are all slightly different. Most of them start from a simple value (either a constant or the value of an object), but some start from a value that is the result of an expression. One starts with a pointer value. Some have multiple conditions. One has a shift instead of an increment, and one has a shift /as well as/ an increment. Some of them use array accesses in the terminating condition. Some initialise two objects in the first part of the for-loop, rather than just one. Many of these patterns cannot be duplicated by BASIC's for loop. > And 100% belong to my list of patterns (your code is more conservative > than mine!) Yeah. I like my code to work, where possible. (It doesn't always, alas.) -- 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]
Page 7 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 39 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web