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 25 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 … 23 24 [25] 26 27 … 39 Next page →
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 16:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ner5gs$ocl$2@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #86421 |
In article <ner2d6$e02$1@dont-email.me>, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >On 15/04/2016 16:29, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>> But where it is possible to write: >>> >>> a[i][j][k] >>> >>> then a[i,j,k] is going to be clearer. >> >> Seems insignificant to me compared to the loss of transparency. > >It must be my eyesight then perhaps combined with my choice of font. Keith really doesn't care about such things. >My first example has 7 characters within the outer brackets, all of >which have a predominant vertical stroke. > >The second example has 5 characters and only the index names have >vertical strokes. This is a very good analysis, but Keith really doesn't give a cr*p about it. Keith suffers from an all-too-common mental failing which is the believe that unless you are fully expert on something, you're not qualified to critique it. This is common across the spectrum of human activity, not just programming. It's the same sort of thing that causes his brain to go into full-tilt mode whenever Malcolm talks about how the underscore is hard to type. >(I also find ][ horrible to type (usually taking several goes to get it >right) compared with a single comma. But obviously it's just me.) I agree. The language that I use most frequently (AWK) suffers from this same problem (See below). I find the ][ sequence hard to type when I am writing AWK as well. Note that, perversely in the context of this thread, classic/traditional AWK does indeed have A[i,j,k] type arrays, but these are so clumsily implemented that no one ever uses them (in mumbledy-mumble years of AWK programming, I can certainly count the number of times I've used them on the fingers of one hand; off-hand, I can't recall *ever* having done so). Modern AWKs have true multi-dimensional arrays, indexed like in C. The point being that AWK was forced to go to the ][ syntax to avoid conflicting with the older i,j,k syntax. -- People who say they'll vote for someone else because Obama couldn't solve all of Bush's messes are like people complaining that he couldn't cure cancer, so they'll go and vote for cancer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 12:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <net7h3$ot$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86427 |
On 15/04/2016 17:39, Kenny McCormack wrote: > In article <ner2d6$e02$1@dont-email.me>, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> (I also find ][ horrible to type (usually taking several goes to get it >> right) compared with a single comma. But obviously it's just me.) > > I agree. The language that I use most frequently (AWK) suffers from this > same problem (See below). I find the ][ sequence hard to type when I am > writing AWK as well. > > Note that, perversely in the context of this thread, classic/traditional > AWK does indeed have A[i,j,k] type arrays, but these are so clumsily > implemented that no one ever uses them You mean, where i,j,k (ie. i][j][k for the C experts here) are each interpreted as strings and then concatenated with a "@" separator to form a single string index for the 1D associative array? > Modern AWKs have true multi-dimensional arrays, indexed like in C. > The point being that AWK was forced to go to the ][ syntax to avoid > conflicting with the older i,j,k syntax. One problem of [i,j,k] as a synonym for [i][j][k] is that it rules out other interpretations of [i,j,k]. So AWK apparently uses [i,j,k] to mean a different, older kind of indexing. But a[i,j,k] could also mean, among other possibilities, returning the 3-element list: (a[i],a[j],a[k]) Unlikely though in C class language. In actual C, it will discard i and j, and return a[k]; not very ground-breaking. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 14:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <netgm4$9v7$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #86466 |
In article <net7h3$ot$1@dont-email.me>, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
...
>> Note that, perversely in the context of this thread, classic/traditional
>> AWK does indeed have A[i,j,k] type arrays, but these are so clumsily
>> implemented that no one ever uses them
>
>You mean, where i,j,k (ie. i][j][k for the C experts here) are each
>interpreted as strings and then concatenated with a "@" separator to
>form a single string index for the 1D associative array?
Yes. Although, in fact, they use the contents of the SUBSEP variable,
whose default value is the character with ASCII value 28 (decimal), as the
separator.
>> Modern AWKs have true multi-dimensional arrays, indexed like in C.
>> The point being that AWK was forced to go to the ][ syntax to avoid
>> conflicting with the older i,j,k syntax.
>
>One problem of [i,j,k] as a synonym for [i][j][k] is that it rules out
>other interpretations of [i,j,k]. So AWK apparently uses [i,j,k] to mean
>a different, older kind of indexing.
Correct. I think what you are really saying here is that, in both AWK and
C, A[i,j,k] already means something (i.e., something else), so it can't
possibly be re-defined to be a synoym (i.e., syntactic sugar) for
A[i][j][k] (without breaking existing code).
>But a[i,j,k] could also mean, among other possibilities, returning the
>3-element list:
>
> (a[i],a[j],a[k])
>
>Unlikely though in C class language. In actual C, it will discard i and
>j, and return a[k]; not very ground-breaking.
Not sure I follow you here, but if you say so...
--
The difference between communism and capitalism?
In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it's the other way around.
- Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology (1960) -
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 20:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ov15hbts3equre0afdth9jm6c41cdgkmsq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #86466 |
On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 12:29:45 +0100, BartC wrote: >One problem of [i,j,k] as a synonym for [i][j][k] they has not be synonims.... #define u8 unsigned char Matrix(Type, N,M,K) a; a[i,j,k]=*(Type*) ( ((u8)a)+sizeof(Type)*i+M*(sizeof(Type))*j+ M*K*(sizeof(Type) )*k ) i,j,k in 0..N-1 X 0..M-1 X 0..K-1 where is the problem?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-23 10:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7j1nhblp0hkn4rnpsv7hho1dtfref212e7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #86466 |
On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 12:29:45 +0100, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 15/04/2016 17:39, Kenny McCormack wrote: > > In article <ner2d6$e02$1@dont-email.me>, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > > >> (I also find ][ horrible to type (usually taking several goes to get it > >> right) compared with a single comma. But obviously it's just me.) > > > > I agree. The language that I use most frequently (AWK) suffers from this > > same problem (See below). I find the ][ sequence hard to type when I am > > writing AWK as well. > > > > Note that, perversely in the context of this thread, classic/traditional > > AWK does indeed have A[i,j,k] type arrays, but these are so clumsily > > implemented that no one ever uses them > > You mean, where i,j,k (ie. i][j][k for the C experts here) are each > interpreted as strings and then concatenated with a "@" separator to > form a single string index for the 1D associative array? > The separator is configurable (at least in gawk) but defaults to hex 1C or ASCII (et seq) File Separator, aka control-backslash. <snip> > But a[i,j,k] could also mean, among other possibilities, returning the > 3-element list: > > (a[i],a[j],a[k]) > Modern Fortran (>=90) does something pretty similar. If A is a rank-1 array (of anything) and V a rank-1 array of integers that are each a valid subscript for A, then A(V) is a rank-1 array value consisting of A(V(1)) A(V(2)) A(V(3)) etc. And a constant (literal) rank-1 array of integers can be written (/ 7, 42, etc /) or >=03 optionally as [ 7, 42, etc ] so A( [7,42,11] ) is the array value consisting of A(7) A(42) A(11). (Unrequired spaces used for clarity.) If the subscript values are distinct, you can use it as an LHS and assign _to_ it a rank-1 value of the correct size (or a scalar) and the elements of that value (or copies of that scalar) are stored to A(V(1)) A(V(2)) etc. But (either way) you can't set a pointer to it. A can also be rank>1 and this applies to each subscript (separately) in the same way. Whereas A(7,42,11) is just a single element out of a rank-3 array.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 18:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87potqu7ri.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #86421 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 15/04/2016 16:29, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>> But where it is possible to write: >>> >>> a[i][j][k] >>> >>> then a[i,j,k] is going to be clearer. >> >> Seems insignificant to me compared to the loss of transparency. > > It must be my eyesight then perhaps combined with my choice of font. > > My first example has 7 characters within the outer brackets, all of > which have a predominant vertical stroke. > > The second example has 5 characters and only the index names have > vertical strokes. You seem determined to avoid my point: "... compared to the loss of transparency". You wanted transparency and yet your solution is an index notation that hides what is happening. All I was saying is that you can't have it both ways. <snip> >> Anyway, >> you can't have what you call transparency and what you seem to consider >> clear. They are at odds with each other -- the commas hide the >> dereferencing. > > (I'm not sure what you mean by that, but my concerns are with having > to type ][ (got that right in only two goes!) instead of comma. C's > types have been discussed enough...) No, that was not your only concern. I replied because you complained about the lack of transparency (just go up the thread of you don't believe me) in the same post where you advocate for a cleaner syntax. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 18:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ner7p8$3pi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86428 |
On 15/04/2016 18:00, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> On 15/04/2016 16:29, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>>> But where it is possible to write: >>>> >>>> a[i][j][k] >>>> >>>> then a[i,j,k] is going to be clearer. >>> >>> Seems insignificant to me compared to the loss of transparency. >> >> It must be my eyesight then perhaps combined with my choice of font. >> >> My first example has 7 characters within the outer brackets, all of >> which have a predominant vertical stroke. >> >> The second example has 5 characters and only the index names have >> vertical strokes. > > You seem determined to avoid my point: "... compared to the loss of > transparency". You wanted transparency and yet your solution is an > index notation that hides what is happening. All I was saying is that > you can't have it both ways. Perhaps I can't see your point. Typing a[i][j] versus a[i,j] is just a choice of syntax. In doesn't have anything to do with transparency. That only comes into it if, to make things more explicit, you can't write a[i][j] in the first place (for example, by having to type (*(*a)[i])[j]. Now you don't have the "][" sequence which can be transformed to ",", or could be if C were to allow it. I mentioned transparency because C's lax approach to indexing allows "[][]" to be used in more situations that some other languages (mine for example, where [] can only be used on an array type; not on a pointer type). Therefore C is better placed to have used [i,j]. The cost however is not being able to tell from a[i][j] whether [i] or [j] is operating directly on arrays, or via pointers. (I'm disregarding the usual spiel that [] /only/ work on pointers; you know what I mean.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 11:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnfuumn2ru.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #86431 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> Typing a[i][j] versus a[i,j] is just a choice of syntax. In doesn't have
> anything to do with transparency.
Not that it's a big deal, but I disagree.
a[i,j] would be a special-case syntax defined specifically for
2-dimensional arrays. The language would have to specify exactly
what it means, using rules that do not apply to a[i]. That wouldn't
be difficult, but it does make the language definition very slightly
more complicated.
In C, a[i][j] means exactly the same as (a[i])[j]. It's simply an
indexing operation applied to the result of an indexing operation.
It *transparently* exposes the fact that indexing into a 2-D array
works by indexing into a 1-D array (of arrays), and then indexing
into the 1-D array that's a row of the outer 2-D array.
Having said all that, it wouldn't particularly have bothered me
if C had banned using a top-level comma operator in an array index
and making a[i,j] syntactic sugar for (a[i])[j]. But the a[i][j]
syntax doesn't bother me either; it probably took me a couple of
minutes to get used to it several decades ago.
> That only comes into it if, to make things more explicit, you can't
> write a[i][j] in the first place (for example, by having to type
> (*(*a)[i])[j]. Now you don't have the "][" sequence which can be
> transformed to ",", or could be if C were to allow it.
>
> I mentioned transparency because C's lax approach to indexing allows
> "[][]" to be used in more situations that some other languages (mine for
> example, where [] can only be used on an array type; not on a pointer
> type). Therefore C is better placed to have used [i,j].
>
> The cost however is not being able to tell from a[i][j] whether [i] or
> [j] is operating directly on arrays, or via pointers. (I'm disregarding
> the usual spiel that [] /only/ work on pointers; you know what I mean.)
Making a[i,j] syntactic sugar for a[i][j] wouldn't necessarily change
the fact that the prefix can be either a converted array or a pointer.
I suppose you could place some additional restrictions on it, but I
don't see much point in doing so.
--
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 | 2016-04-15 20:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nergr9$9pu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86434 |
On 15/04/2016 19:30, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] >> Typing a[i][j] versus a[i,j] is just a choice of syntax. In doesn't have >> anything to do with transparency. > > Not that it's a big deal, but I disagree. > > a[i,j] would be a special-case syntax defined specifically for > 2-dimensional arrays. The language would have to specify exactly > what it means, using rules that do not apply to a[i]. That wouldn't > be difficult, but it does make the language definition very slightly > more complicated. > > In C, a[i][j] means exactly the same as (a[i])[j]. It's simply an > indexing operation applied to the result of an indexing operation. > It *transparently* exposes the fact that indexing into a 2-D array > works by indexing into a 1-D array (of arrays), and then indexing > into the 1-D array that's a row of the outer 2-D array. I've long since forgotten the distinction between an array of arrays and a rectangular 2D array. (I suppose that in some languages, the latter can only ever be indexed in both dimensions; you can't extract an entire row, only an element.) I'm talking only about getting rid of the "][" in a[i][j] and replacing it with ","; that's all! It's admittedly a minor point (and a small nuisance if you're a clumsy typist), but it's not really about anything else or about classifications of array ranks. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 14:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lny48elfv5.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #86441 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> I've long since forgotten the distinction between an array of arrays and
> a rectangular 2D array.
In C they're exactly the same thing.
--
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 | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 21:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nermo4$3kh$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #86447 |
In article <lny48elfv5.fsf@kst-u.example.com>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: >BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >[...] >> I've long since forgotten the distinction between an array of arrays and >> a rectangular 2D array. > >In C they're exactly the same thing. If they are exactly the same thing, then why do newsgroup regs go non-linear when people say that C has "rectangular 2D arrays"? I.e., why do they so vehemently insist that C only has "arrays of arrays"? -- (The Republican mind, in a nutshell) You believe things that are incomprehensible, inconsistent, impossible because we have commanded you to believe them; go then and do what is unjust because we command it. Such people show admirable reasoning. Truly, whoever is able to make you absurd is able to make you unjust. If the God-given understanding of your mind does not resist a demand to believe what is impossible, then you will not resist a demand to do wrong to that God-given sense of justice in your heart. As soon as one faculty of your soul has been dominated, other faculties will follow as well. And from this derives all those crimes of religion which have overrun the world. (Alternative condensed translation) "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 23:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nerpf6$b1p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86448 |
On 15/04/2016 22:33, Kenny McCormack wrote: > In article <lny48elfv5.fsf@kst-u.example.com>, > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> [...] >>> I've long since forgotten the distinction between an array of arrays and >>> a rectangular 2D array. >> >> In C they're exactly the same thing. > > If they are exactly the same thing, then why do newsgroup regs go > non-linear when people say that C has "rectangular 2D arrays"? > I.e., why do they so vehemently insist that C only has "arrays of arrays"? Some say C doesn't have arrays at all. I'd dispute that, but it is true that a lot can be done with just blocks of memory and pointers. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 15:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lntwj2lcyp.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #86450 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 15/04/2016 22:33, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> In article <lny48elfv5.fsf@kst-u.example.com>,
>> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> [...]
>>>> I've long since forgotten the distinction between an array of arrays and
>>>> a rectangular 2D array.
>>>
>>> In C they're exactly the same thing.
>>
>> If they are exactly the same thing, then why do newsgroup regs go
>> non-linear when people say that C has "rectangular 2D arrays"?
>> I.e., why do they so vehemently insist that C only has "arrays of arrays"?
They insist that C has arrays of arrays because it does. If they
insist that C doesn't have 2D arrays, they're mistaken -- but I don't
recall anyone saying that. The C standard specifically talks about
multidimensional array. The just happen to be arrays of arrays.
(Some languages, Ada for example, have multidimensional arrays and
arrays of arrays as distinct concepts.)
> Some say C doesn't have arrays at all.
Anyone who says that is quite simply wrong.
> I'd dispute that, but it is true that a lot can be done with just blocks
> of memory and pointers.
But then you're probably dealing with array objects anyway.
--
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 | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 19:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nertr4$nhf$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #86448 |
On 4/15/2016 5:33 PM, Kenny McCormack wrote: > In article <lny48elfv5.fsf@kst-u.example.com>, > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> [...] >>> I've long since forgotten the distinction between an array of arrays and >>> a rectangular 2D array. >> >> In C they're exactly the same thing. > > If they are exactly the same thing, then why do newsgroup regs go > non-linear when people say that C has "rectangular 2D arrays"? > I.e., why do they so vehemently insist that C only has "arrays of arrays"? > Because C docs don't talk about 2D arrays, but do talk about "arrays of arrays". The former is very specific (2D only), while the latter is much more general (it might be 2D, 3D, 4D, nD...) because each array can itself be an array. And some C programmers are very pedantic. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 21:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87y48esju3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #86431 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 15/04/2016 18:00, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>> On 15/04/2016 16:29, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> >>>>> But where it is possible to write: >>>>> >>>>> a[i][j][k] >>>>> >>>>> then a[i,j,k] is going to be clearer. >>>> >>>> Seems insignificant to me compared to the loss of transparency. >>> >>> It must be my eyesight then perhaps combined with my choice of font. >>> >>> My first example has 7 characters within the outer brackets, all of >>> which have a predominant vertical stroke. >>> >>> The second example has 5 characters and only the index names have >>> vertical strokes. >> >> You seem determined to avoid my point: "... compared to the loss of >> transparency". You wanted transparency and yet your solution is an >> index notation that hides what is happening. All I was saying is that >> you can't have it both ways. > > Perhaps I can't see your point. Or many I don't know what transparency means to you... > Typing a[i][j] versus a[i,j] is just a choice of syntax. In doesn't > have anything to do with transparency. Yup, that looks like the problem. It affects what *I* mean by transparency but obviously not what *you* mean by the term. I'm not sure there is any value in trying to explain what either of us means by our usage. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 21:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nerjes$jgi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86443 |
On 15/04/2016 21:22, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>> Typing a[i][j] versus a[i,j] is just a choice of syntax. In doesn't
>> have anything to do with transparency.
>
> Yup, that looks like the problem. It affects what *I* mean by
> transparency but obviously not what *you* mean by the term. I'm not
> sure there is any value in trying to explain what either of us means by
> our usage.
FWIW, I would express a[i][j] in intermediate code (and before any
analysis of types) as:
(index (index a i) j)
while a[i,j] would be:
(index (index a i) j)
In other words, exactly the same thing; a[i,j] is syntactic sugar.
But it sounds like others in the thread expect a[i,j] to mean:
(index2d a i j)
So something a little different.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 22:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87r3e6sfsi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #86445 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 15/04/2016 21:22, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> >>> Typing a[i][j] versus a[i,j] is just a choice of syntax. In doesn't >>> have anything to do with transparency. >> >> Yup, that looks like the problem. It affects what *I* mean by >> transparency but obviously not what *you* mean by the term. I'm not >> sure there is any value in trying to explain what either of us means by >> our usage. > > FWIW, I would express a[i][j] in intermediate code (and before any > analysis of types) as: > > (index (index a i) j) > > while a[i,j] would be: > > (index (index a i) j) > > In other words, exactly the same thing; a[i,j] is syntactic sugar. And, FWIW on my side, that's exactly what I mean by a[i,j] being less transparent. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 16:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <negd29$qqp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86278 |
On 11/04/16 15:14, BartC wrote:
> On 11/04/2016 13:15, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Whilst C's multi-dimensional array syntax is awful, in practice you
>>> just don't use
>>> it, you pass about N dimensional arrays as flat buffers. Not very
>>> convenient, or
>>> ideal, but it works.
>>
>> It should be said that this apparently general remark about what "you
>> do" is just one of Malcolm's generalisations. Some other people use the
>> syntax, warts and all. Here's an example of the "awful" syntax:
>>
>> void transpose(int n, int m, double src[n][m], double dst[m][n])
>> {
>> for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
>> for (int j = 0; j < m; j++)
>> dst[j][i] = src[i][j];
>
> If the awfulness is to do with using "][" between indices instead of ","
> then I think the latter /is/ clearer written as:
>
> dst[j,i] = src[i,j];
>
> But ability to hide away the derefs helps a lot too.
>
> (That's assuming there are derefs involved. I suppose there must be at
> least one, but I couldn't tell whether 'double src[n][m]' is a pointer
> to a flat 2D array, or a pointer to a double, or a pointer to a 1D array
> of pointers. Transparency here is poor.)
>
There is an easy answer here - use C++, make your multi-dimensional
arrays a class, and overload the comma operator :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 09:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c1508ab3-f59c-419b-9d97-b4b254a29d89@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #86284 |
On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 9:44:41 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
> There is an easy answer here - use C++, make your multi-dimensional
> arrays a class, and overload the comma operator :-)
There are some cases where operator overloading would be much more useful if
it could be made context-sensitive. There's a widespread perception that
because early languages evaluated expressions inside-out in context-free
fashion, that's the way languages should be designed, but early designs were
as they were because of the resource constraints faced by early compilers. I
don't know if there are any C compilers which *actually* process expressions
in truly-context-free fashion (e.g. generating code for "if (a==b)" by
evaluating "a==b" as an expression which yields 0 or 1, so I'm unclear on
the value of having expression evaluation be independent of context.
While the comma operator is one which I don't think should have been
overloadable at all since it has a meaning which is different from anything
an overloadable operator can do, the ability to overload it would seem much
more useful overloads could be attached to invocations of the [] "operator"
on certain types. If C were to add a form of scoped enumerated types, such
that e.g. "scoped enum FOO {BIZ, BOZ};" would create identifiers "FOO.BIZ"
and "FOO.BOZ" without polluting the global namespace with "BIZ" and "BOZ",
context-sensitive evaluation could allow "BIZ" and "BOZ" [without FOO.] as
short-hand in contexts where a value was going to be coerced to type "FOO",
since most uses of enumerators are apt to be coerced in such fashion. I
think there's probably too much inertia in favor of context-free evaluation,
but overcoming such inertia could offer some nice benefits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 18:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <negk8i$pia$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86290 |
On 11/04/16 18:00, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 9:44:41 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>> There is an easy answer here - use C++, make your multi-dimensional
>> arrays a class, and overload the comma operator :-)
>
> There are some cases where operator overloading would be much more useful if
> it could be made context-sensitive. There's a widespread perception that
> because early languages evaluated expressions inside-out in context-free
> fashion, that's the way languages should be designed, but early designs were
> as they were because of the resource constraints faced by early compilers. I
> don't know if there are any C compilers which *actually* process expressions
> in truly-context-free fashion (e.g. generating code for "if (a==b)" by
> evaluating "a==b" as an expression which yields 0 or 1, so I'm unclear on
> the value of having expression evaluation be independent of context.
>
> While the comma operator is one which I don't think should have been
> overloadable at all since it has a meaning which is different from anything
> an overloadable operator can do, the ability to overload it would seem much
> more useful overloads could be attached to invocations of the [] "operator"
> on certain types. If C were to add a form of scoped enumerated types, such
> that e.g. "scoped enum FOO {BIZ, BOZ};" would create identifiers "FOO.BIZ"
> and "FOO.BOZ" without polluting the global namespace with "BIZ" and "BOZ",
> context-sensitive evaluation could allow "BIZ" and "BOZ" [without FOO.] as
> short-hand in contexts where a value was going to be coerced to type "FOO",
> since most uses of enumerators are apt to be coerced in such fashion. I
> think there's probably too much inertia in favor of context-free evaluation,
> but overcoming such inertia could offer some nice benefits.
>
That sounds like a long way to say that C should have scoped enums, just
like C++11. Personally, I think scoped enums are a good addition to C++
with C++11, but would seem a bit out of place in C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 25 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 … 23 24 [25] 26 27 … 39 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web