Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #124080 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-12-09 16:20 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-12-24 21:04 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 320 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-09 16:20 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-10 00:31 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? gordonb.k2333@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2017-12-09 20:40 -0600
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-12-10 02:21 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-10 11:50 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-10 04:19 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-12-10 04:32 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-10 04:43 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-10 05:03 -0800
Who's a troll now? (Was: Auto-execute code at exit?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-12-10 14:01 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-12-11 15:19 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-11 15:46 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-11 08:04 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-11 18:35 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-11 11:09 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-11 20:28 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-11 12:38 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-12 09:07 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-12 11:45 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-12 13:50 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-12 19:29 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-12-13 08:52 +1300
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-12 23:04 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-12 21:08 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-12 21:40 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-12 23:22 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-12-12 15:54 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-13 00:11 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-12 17:38 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-13 10:44 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-13 03:12 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-13 10:16 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-12 09:35 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-12 20:42 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-12 09:02 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-12-12 21:34 +1300
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-12-11 18:37 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-12-11 19:39 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Gordon Burditt <gordon@hammy.burditt.org> - 2017-12-12 20:54 -0600
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2017-12-09 19:32 -0500
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-12-10 13:36 +1300
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-09 17:14 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-12-09 21:49 -0700
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2017-12-10 11:04 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2017-12-10 20:22 +0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-10 18:10 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2017-12-10 20:48 +0000
Auto-execute code at exit? mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2017-12-10 10:59 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-10 20:37 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-12-10 15:58 -0500
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-10 22:59 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2017-12-11 02:34 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-11 15:33 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-11 16:42 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-11 15:52 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-12-11 15:53 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2017-12-11 17:09 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-11 08:18 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2017-12-11 19:04 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-11 08:19 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-11 17:26 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-11 09:40 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-11 18:09 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-11 11:07 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-11 20:18 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-11 12:27 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-12-11 13:42 -0700
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-11 12:54 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-12-11 19:34 -0700
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2017-12-11 17:46 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-11 19:31 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-11 18:48 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-12 09:36 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-12-11 18:49 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-12-11 20:33 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-11 12:39 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-12-11 21:22 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-11 13:25 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-12 05:45 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-11 21:00 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-11 13:13 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-11 21:45 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-12-12 10:46 +1300
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-11 14:04 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-12 05:42 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-11 13:53 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-12-11 21:21 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-11 21:53 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-11 08:01 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-11 18:00 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-11 11:01 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-11 20:44 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-11 12:52 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-11 21:16 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-11 13:24 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-12 09:55 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2017-12-11 22:00 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-11 21:43 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-12 09:52 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-12-11 21:41 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-11 22:33 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-12-12 01:17 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-12 01:44 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-12 10:01 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-12 11:17 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2017-12-12 03:40 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-12 12:01 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2017-12-12 04:50 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-12-12 18:33 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-12 10:37 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-12-12 21:43 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-12 11:31 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-12-12 20:09 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-12 13:56 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-12 19:44 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-12-13 09:07 +1300
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-12 23:28 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-13 00:08 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2017-12-13 01:42 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-12-13 16:35 +1300
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-13 10:55 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2017-12-13 11:04 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-12-13 11:45 -0600
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-13 13:36 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-12-14 07:34 +1300
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-13 03:20 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-13 11:25 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-13 11:50 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-13 14:27 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-13 14:31 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-13 16:56 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-13 19:27 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-13 21:15 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-13 22:48 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-14 07:44 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-12-14 06:55 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2017-12-14 00:32 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-15 00:01 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2017-12-15 00:48 -0800
Why post to Usenet? (Was: Auto-execute code at exit?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-12-15 10:51 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-15 12:18 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-12-15 17:40 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-15 20:12 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-12-15 12:54 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-12-15 13:51 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-16 14:46 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-12-15 23:20 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-16 00:36 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-16 01:34 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-12-16 20:06 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-17 17:33 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-17 21:35 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-17 15:06 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-12-18 12:41 +1300
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-12-18 03:36 -0600
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-18 11:51 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-18 12:02 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-18 12:43 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-18 15:07 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-18 16:07 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-18 20:50 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-18 13:57 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-18 15:36 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-18 21:04 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-18 09:08 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-18 20:51 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-12-18 15:37 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-18 16:28 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-18 10:59 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-18 19:35 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-18 19:55 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-12-18 20:48 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-12-18 13:03 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-12-18 21:14 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-19 00:08 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-18 16:58 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-19 01:28 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-12-19 14:35 +1300
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-19 01:45 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-12-19 01:49 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-19 02:54 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-12-19 14:45 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-12-19 07:48 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-19 16:00 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-19 17:42 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-12-19 17:19 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-19 09:43 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-12-19 18:57 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-19 09:33 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-19 18:34 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-12-19 11:05 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-12-18 21:09 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-18 20:38 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-12-19 13:35 +1300
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-19 01:00 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-12-19 14:04 +1300
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-20 13:42 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-20 15:52 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-20 15:42 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-12-20 08:16 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-20 18:25 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-12-20 10:48 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-20 20:43 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-12-20 12:44 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-21 15:18 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-12-21 09:45 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-21 20:08 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-12-21 12:33 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-21 22:42 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-12-21 15:20 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-22 09:57 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-12-22 08:21 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-23 13:32 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-12-23 19:35 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-12-26 12:08 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-26 12:36 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-27 10:38 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-12-27 08:14 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2017-12-27 09:50 -0500
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-20 12:12 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-20 18:16 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-20 19:41 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-20 22:52 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-20 15:39 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-12-21 13:02 +1300
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-21 00:50 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-20 18:22 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-21 12:10 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-21 13:10 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-12-21 20:55 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-21 21:37 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-12-22 01:50 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-22 12:14 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-12-22 17:01 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-22 17:34 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-12-22 09:52 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-22 12:02 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-22 20:18 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-22 12:39 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-22 23:10 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-22 17:05 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-23 02:17 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2017-12-22 22:14 -0500
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-23 14:43 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-23 14:31 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-12-24 09:45 +1300
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-12-23 16:28 +1300
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-23 11:23 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2017-12-23 13:24 -0500
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-12-24 09:29 +1300
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-12-21 20:57 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-21 13:11 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-21 21:58 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-12-21 14:03 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-22 01:34 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-12-22 07:55 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-12-22 16:41 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-12-22 12:46 -0500
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-12-23 11:57 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-12-23 08:12 -0500
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-12-23 21:02 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-12-23 16:13 -0500
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-23 22:15 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-23 14:45 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-23 15:47 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-12-23 19:34 -0500
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-24 12:08 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2017-12-24 12:11 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-24 12:17 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-12-24 05:49 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-24 13:06 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-23 13:51 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-23 22:17 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-12-22 18:37 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-22 19:03 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-12-20 17:44 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-18 17:22 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-19 01:41 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-19 09:54 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-19 13:24 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-19 14:43 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-19 09:02 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-12-18 20:58 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-18 22:36 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-12-18 20:37 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-18 09:13 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-12-18 20:51 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-18 09:03 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-12-18 19:13 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-18 11:28 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-18 10:07 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-12-18 07:50 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-12-16 12:21 +1300
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-15 09:51 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-14 12:08 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-14 05:13 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-12-13 09:21 -0700
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-13 19:27 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-13 15:14 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-13 17:11 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-12-13 00:29 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2017-12-13 00:41 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-12-14 06:51 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-14 14:40 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-12-14 17:15 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-14 18:59 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-12-12 09:48 +0100
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2017-12-11 17:40 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-12-11 10:57 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-10 13:56 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-12-10 14:09 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-10 14:18 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-12-10 14:51 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-12-23 11:08 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-12-25 00:49 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-12-11 00:29 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-12-11 18:30 +0000
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-12-11 11:09 -0800
Auto-execute code at exit? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-12-10 15:05 -0800
Re: Auto-execute code at exit? mcheung63@gmail.com - 2017-12-24 21:04 -0800
Page 5 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 16 Next page →
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-11 13:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnmv2potmo.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #124183 |
bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> The real problem is that stdout etc are defined in a way that is not
> conducive to their use from outside the language.
Correct, standard C headers are designed to be used from C.
Interoperability with other languages was not a major consideration
in the design of the language.
stdout is a macro, which means it can only be directly used by
code that's been run through the C preprocessor and can use the
resulting expansion (that usually means C, or C++, or Objective-C).
You can study the C implementation's headers to reverse-engineer how
stdout is defined, and use that information to write code in your
own language that refers to the FILE* object that stdout refers to.
The resulting solution will likely break when you try to use it
with a different C implementation, or with a later version of the
same C implementation.
You can write a C function that returns the value of stdout and
call that function from your language. (I presume your language
has ways to do this.)
In some cases, you can use a function that works with stdout
implicitly, for example calling printf rather than fprintf.
Of course this isn't a general solution.
Or you can just complain at great length that C doesn't do something
that you need, but that it was never designed to do.
--
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 | 2017-12-11 21:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p%CXB.170482$B61.7866@fx42.am4> |
| In reply to | #124185 |
On 11/12/2017 21:13, Keith Thompson wrote: > bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > Or you can just complain at great length that C doesn't do something > that you need, but that it was never designed to do. Other people have been arguing that C can be effortlessly used from any other language, simply by knowing the platform ABI and the docs for the features you need. I'm saying that is not the case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-12 10:46 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <f98cmfF37deU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #124193 |
On 12/12/2017 10:45 AM, bartc wrote: > On 11/12/2017 21:13, Keith Thompson wrote: >> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> Or you can just complain at great length that C doesn't do something >> that you need, but that it was never designed to do. > > Other people have been arguing that C can be effortlessly used from any > other language, simply by knowing the platform ABI and the docs for the > features you need. > > I'm saying that is not the case. All together now - oh yes it is! -- Ian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-11 14:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnefo0q5tt.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #124194 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:
> On 12/12/2017 10:45 AM, bartc wrote:
>> On 11/12/2017 21:13, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>> Or you can just complain at great length that C doesn't do something
>>> that you need, but that it was never designed to do.
>>
>> Other people have been arguing that C can be effortlessly used from any
>> other language, simply by knowing the platform ABI and the docs for the
>> features you need.
>>
>> I'm saying that is not the case.
>
> All together now - oh yes it is!
It's possible, but not effortless. bartc's example of referring to
the stdout macro is an example; I don't believe an ABI would help
with that. (My suggestion was to write a C wrapper function that
returns the value of stdout.)
And as someone else pointed out, stdio is likely to require some
initialization that wouldn't be done if the main program is in a
language other than C (or C++, or Objective-C). There might be an
entry point for performing that initialization.
--
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 | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-12 05:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <371be976-0f1d-4bb5-a4ff-74173b48e24e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #124194 |
On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 4:47:05 PM UTC-5, Ian Collins wrote: > On 12/12/2017 10:45 AM, bartc wrote: > > I'm saying that is not the case. > > All together now - oh yes it is! Ian, this reply made me laugh out loud when driving home yesterday afternoon. :-) That's not to say I agree with you. I didn't actually read what you wrote, or what Bart was writing about. But, it was just the general context of the statement, "All together now..." :-) It had me laughing and smiling for a few miles. -- Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-11 13:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lninddorss.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #124193 |
bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 11/12/2017 21:13, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Or you can just complain at great length that C doesn't do something
>> that you need, but that it was never designed to do.
>
> Other people have been arguing that C can be effortlessly used from any
> other language, simply by knowing the platform ABI and the docs for the
> features you need.
>
> I'm saying that is not the case.
I don't recall anyone saying it would be "effortless". I wouldn't
expect it to be. A platform ABI can be very helpful, but it doesn't
solve all the problems.
--
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 | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-11 21:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tFCXB.12149$603.8709@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #124183 |
bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 11/12/2017 20:33, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>> On 11/12/17 16:52, bartc wrote: >>>> On 11/12/2017 15:42, David Brown wrote: >>>>> On 11/12/17 16:33, bartc wrote: >>>> >>>>> <snip, including the joke at the end> >>>> >>>> Assuming you mean this, it wasn't a joke: >>>> >>>> (As a test, try and do the equivalent of: >>>> >>>> Â fprintf(stdout,"hello"); >>>> >> >> .data >> hw: .ascii "Hello World" >> hwl: .long .-hw >> .text >> main: >> mov $1, %rdx >> movabs $hw, %rsi >> mov hwl, %rdx >> call write >> xor %rax, %rax >> ret > >This doesn't call fprintf. To call fprintf, you must first initialize stdio, which is done by the standard C runtime startup function, which wouldn't automatically be invoked in an assembler program. In any case, fprintf without format characters is the same as write. > >And it doesn't use stdout. (And it writes the wrong message...) And yes, it does use stdout - the first argument to the write system call (kernel function) is the file descriptor number, and by unix convention, file descriptor 1 is stdout and is opened by the shell before exec()ing the program.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-11 21:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g7DXB.112459$X11.36361@fx20.am4> |
| In reply to | #124187 |
On 11/12/2017 21:21, Scott Lurndal wrote: > bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> This doesn't call fprintf. > > To call fprintf, you must first initialize stdio, which > is done by the standard C runtime startup function, which > wouldn't automatically be invoked in an assembler program. I've called C file functions without initialising stdio (whatever that means). I would expect initialisation to be the responsibility of the library itself, especially if used as an external shared library. > In any case, fprintf without format characters is the same > as write. write doesn't take a FILE* argument. That was the purpose of my example. If you're suggesting that we can all do without any FILE* type, then fine. But why does standard C make heavy use of functions that take FILE* if it is just as easy and convenient without them? >> And it doesn't use stdout. (And it writes the wrong message...) > > And yes, it does use stdout - the first argument to the write > system call (kernel function) is the file descriptor number, and > by unix convention, file descriptor 1 is stdout and is opened by the > shell before exec()ing the program. No. I mean the stdout that can be passed to standard C functions like fprintf and fwrite. C defines that as a pointer type, not an integer. -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-11 08:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1549e903-ac66-44a7-9f09-a6532c97683c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #124130 |
On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 10:33:47 AM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
> On 11/12/2017 02:34, Melzzzzz wrote:
> > On 2017-12-10, bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I more I learn about C, the more I wonder how such a mess of a language
> >> ever became successful.
> >
> > It could replace assembler.
>
> It's a poor substitute for an assembler.
I agree that assembler has its solid and fundamental place. But I do
think C is about the best language ever constructed for doing things
at a level above assembly, but close enough to assembly, that the mun-
dane syntax components are removed and replaced with a very nice pre-
sentation of source code. Looking at well-written C code can be a
real thing of beauty. But looking at poorly-written C code can be as
bad as assembly.
> If using an actual assembler was too low level, then you might use a
> high level assembler, but still targetted at a specific machine.
I've considered this at various times. I'm not sure I see the point.
If you have a task that's crucial enough to need assembly language,
then it's probably specific enough that a high level assembler would
not be your preferred tool.
And in some area where a high level assembler would be your preferred
tool, it's likely that C will do it better.
> C goes to some lengths to avoid being specific, making it less useful
> when you /are/ interested in a particular platform (for drivers etc).
Agreed. But I think that could be removed by making the C language
realize that it's actually working on an x86 CPU, for example. There
should be machine-specific features to allow direct access to some
hardware components, and without dipping down into inline assembly.
Developers can read some docs and realize that some function needs
0x29 in the ah register, and call int 0x57, with the result being
returned in esi, without having to do that. There should be a way
to do something like:
DWORD result;
(result=esi) = x86(ah=0x29, int 0x57);
In such a case, no assemly is needed, and it's very clear what's
taking place. I think C should allow for extensions like that per
platform. I don't expect C to change, so such extensions will make
it into CAlive at some point.
> > Power of C is in simplicity. Find any other language that has such
> > simple interface, so all of the languages have bindings to it ...
>
> I don't know if 'simplicity' is the right word here. Certainly at this
> level it is possible work with it in a way that is not practical with
> most other languages.
I think simplicity is correct. It does require an initial learning
curve, but once you're there ... it is elegant. The only thing that's
more elegant is C++'s member function syntax, but it is slower and can
cause problems.
In my experience, C is about as clean as it gets (from a language-
syntax point of view, I can say things all day long about the C
standard library functions).
There are a handful of areas where C should be expanded to be more like
C++, such as function overloading, function parameter prototyping, etc.
If C had features like those (which CAlive does), it would be the best
language ever for low-level work.
> But it piles on a large amount of extra junk that makes that job harder
> than it need be.
Agreed.
> (As a test, try and do the equivalent of:
> fprintf(stdout,"hello");
> from assembly code for the platform of your choice.)
That's the OP's point. C is easier, faster to code, less prone to
errors. Assembly is much harder, slower to develop and debug, and
it's not always that much faster. And whereas assembly has its place,
it's not for everything.
I just remembered I never continued work on my memory allocation
algorithm. I'll have to pull that out of moth balls and resume.
--
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-11 18:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <WIzXB.347971$ej.220167@fx46.am4> |
| In reply to | #124136 |
On 11/12/2017 16:01, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 10:33:47 AM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
> In my experience, C is about as clean as it gets (from a language-
> syntax point of view, I can say things all day long about the C
> standard library functions).
You really think C has clean syntax?
C: for (i=1; i<=20; ++i) printf("%d %f\n", i, sqrt(i));
M: for i to 20 do println i,sqrt i od
C M
Parentheses: 6 0
Semicolons: 3 0
Operators: 3 0
Format codes: 2 0
Strings: 1 0
Escape codes: 1 0
Commas: 2 1
How many i's: 5 3
Your idea of 'clean' is obviously very different from mine! And this
example is one of the simplest (actually, it was the very first demo of
a computer program I ever saw, written in Basic, I think in 1975).
>> (As a test, try and do the equivalent of:
>> fprintf(stdout,"hello");
>> from assembly code for the platform of your choice.)
>
> That's the OP's point. C is easier, faster to code, less prone to
> errors. Assembly is much harder, slower to develop and debug, and
> it's not always that much faster. And whereas assembly has its place,
> it's not for everything.
Agreed. But I want to call fprintf with stdout from /my/ high level
language which is even better. Saying that I want to use it from ASM is
one way to highlight the problems in extracting the requisite info from
docs that assume you are using C.
--
bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-11 11:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ef9175cb-35ac-49e3-a47d-328b514086a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #124151 |
On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 1:00:33 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
> On 11/12/2017 16:01, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 10:33:47 AM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
>
> > In my experience, C is about as clean as it gets (from a language-
> > syntax point of view, I can say things all day long about the C
> > standard library functions).
>
> You really think C has clean syntax?
>
> C: for (i=1; i<=20; ++i) printf("%d %f\n", i, sqrt(i));
>
> M: for i to 20 do println i,sqrt i od
I would write both of them as:
for (i = 0; i <= 20; ++i)
printf("%d %f\n", i, sqrt(i));
for i to 20
do
println i, sqrt i
od
I would take C's syntax there 50:1 over yours, Bart. Sorry. :-) The
parenthesis help my eyes break out the components. I also recognize
the pattern. And for one-liners like this, having do..od is weird.
Plus, I've never liked the do..od, for..rof, while..elihw type matches.
I think the {..} is far superior across the board.
> C M
>
> Parentheses: 6 0
> Semicolons: 3 0
> Operators: 3 0
> Format codes: 2 0
> Strings: 1 0
> Escape codes: 1 0
> Commas: 2 1
> How many i's: 5 3
>
> Your idea of 'clean' is obviously very different from mine! And this
> example is one of the simplest (actually, it was the very first demo of
> a computer program I ever saw, written in Basic, I think in 1975).
Definitely different.
With dylexia, I like to have things spatially broken out, that way a
different part of my brain than the reading center is categorizing
things for me, and then my reading burden is reduced.
> >> (As a test, try and do the equivalent of:
> >> fprintf(stdout,"hello");
> >> from assembly code for the platform of your choice.)
> >
> > That's the OP's point. C is easier, faster to code, less prone to
> > errors. Assembly is much harder, slower to develop and debug, and
> > it's not always that much faster. And whereas assembly has its place,
> > it's not for everything.
>
> Agreed. But I want to call fprintf with stdout from /my/ high level
> language which is even better. Saying that I want to use it from ASM is
> one way to highlight the problems in extracting the requisite info from
> docs that assume you are using C.
I think you can do that by just passing 0, 1, or 2 for the stdout
values. I know for a fact you can do this in DOS with int 21h. And
IIRC, Windows also honors it, but it's been many years since I wrote
code like that. Nowadays I use other algorithms and hardly ever use
std* except for quick things done for testing.
--
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-11 20:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k6CXB.204104$Mu.16395@fx02.am4> |
| In reply to | #124165 |
On 11/12/2017 19:01, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 1:00:33 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
> I think the {..} is far superior across the board.
There are some problems with {...}; have I ever mentioned them?(If you
don't remember, they are the first topic here:
https://github.com/bartg/langs/blob/master/features.md)
But clearly you like punctuation:
C: if (a==b && c==d) {s1; s2; s3;} else {s4; s5; s6;}
M: if a=b and c=d then s1; s2; s3 else s4; s5; s6 endif
C M
Brackets: 2 0
Braces: 4 0
Semicolons: 6 4 (for my one-line example)
Semicolons: 6 0 (multi-line)
It's not so much about the length; this is like my point about
passwords: it is easier to type text that consists of letters and
spaces, than punctuation and mixed case, even if there are more characters.
Note that the second example is usually written as if...fi because
if...fi do the same job as (...).
--
bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-11 12:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <af823547-feb8-4c96-91e5-55b7420610b3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #124180 |
On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 3:44:10 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
> On 11/12/2017 19:01, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 1:00:33 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
>
> > I think the {..} is far superior across the board.
>
> There are some problems with {...}; have I ever mentioned them?(If you
> don't remember, they are the first topic here:
> https://github.com/bartg/langs/blob/master/features.md)
>
> But clearly you like punctuation:
>
> C: if (a==b && c==d) {s1; s2; s3;} else {s4; s5; s6;}
>
> M: if a=b and c=d then s1; s2; s3 else s4; s5; s6 endif
>
> C M
> Brackets: 2 0
> Braces: 4 0
> Semicolons: 6 4 (for my one-line example)
> Semicolons: 6 0 (multi-line)
>
> It's not so much about the length; this is like my point about
> passwords: it is easier to type text that consists of letters and
> spaces, than punctuation and mixed case, even if there are more characters.
>
> Note that the second example is usually written as if...fi because
> if...fi do the same job as (...).
I still disagree with you here. I like the {..} blocks as they
give my eye a cue for the start and end. In your version I have
to read everything. And I presume if it was broken out into one-
liners, then it would be do..od, which would cause me to say, "Thank
you. Next!" to bring in the next compiler author who's trying to
get me to use his/her tool. :-)
--
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-11 21:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <LACXB.150681$U41.50223@fx07.am4> |
| In reply to | #124181 |
On 11/12/2017 20:52, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 3:44:10 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
> I still disagree with you here. I like the {..} blocks as they
> give my eye a cue for the start and end. In your version I have
> to read everything. And I presume if it was broken out into one-
> liners, then it would be do..od, which would cause me to say, "Thank
> you. Next!" to bring in the next compiler author who's trying to
> get me to use his/her tool. :-)
What's the real problem here? You prefer { and } to delimit a block
(plus a heap of fiddly-to-type and easy-to-get-wrong punctuation).
Many languages do not use { and }, including modern Fortran and Ada.
Fortran uses do ... enddo for while-loops. Ada uses loop ... end loop.
For 'for' loops, my syntax allows a choice of:
for ... do ... od
for ... do ... end
for ... do ... end for
for ... do ... endfor
If you want something to grab your eye, then how about << ... >> ?
I used these in the Babbage language I was porting in the late 70s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babbage_(programming_language)
--
bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-11 13:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f7c26e2c-a879-4646-a550-49a37162e762@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #124186 |
On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 4:16:36 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
> On 11/12/2017 20:52, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 3:44:10 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
>
> > I still disagree with you here. I like the {..} blocks as they
> > give my eye a cue for the start and end. In your version I have
> > to read everything. And I presume if it was broken out into one-
> > liners, then it would be do..od, which would cause me to say, "Thank
> > you. Next!" to bring in the next compiler author who's trying to
> > get me to use his/her tool. :-)
>
> What's the real problem here? You prefer { and } to delimit a block
> (plus a heap of fiddly-to-type and easy-to-get-wrong punctuation).
Yes. It does take some additional effort, but not much when you use an
intelligent GUI that auto-inserts the mated } when you type {, although
sometimes that auto-insert also gets annoying. :-)
And modern day compilers compile fast enough you can fix one error at
a time and recompile and viola! Perfect code every time. LOL! :-)
> Many languages do not use { and }, including modern Fortran and Ada.
> Fortran uses do ... enddo for while-loops. Ada uses loop ... end loop.
>
> For 'for' loops, my syntax allows a choice of:
>
> for ... do ... od
> for ... do ... end
> for ... do ... end for
> for ... do ... endfor
Not for me. FoxPro uses FOR..ENDFOR and FOR..NEXT. I do like those
in that language, but it is also very verbose like htat.
> If you want something to grab your eye, then how about << ... >> ?
CAlive uses {{..}} to allow encapsulation of unmated {..} blocks,
specifically for flow {..} blocks. But, any place you can use a {
and } you can also use a {{ and }}, but they have to be mated.
> I used these in the Babbage language I was porting in the late 70s:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babbage_(programming_language)
--
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-12 09:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <p0o5h8$55b$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124186 |
On 11/12/17 22:16, bartc wrote:
> On 11/12/2017 20:52, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 3:44:10 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
>
>> I still disagree with you here. I like the {..} blocks as they
>> give my eye a cue for the start and end. In your version I have
>> to read everything. And I presume if it was broken out into one-
>> liners, then it would be do..od, which would cause me to say, "Thank
>> you. Next!" to bring in the next compiler author who's trying to
>> get me to use his/her tool. :-)
>
> What's the real problem here? You prefer { and } to delimit a block
> (plus a heap of fiddly-to-type and easy-to-get-wrong punctuation).
>
> Many languages do not use { and }, including modern Fortran and Ada.
> Fortran uses do ... enddo for while-loops. Ada uses loop ... end loop.
>
> For 'for' loops, my syntax allows a choice of:
>
> for ... do ... od
> for ... do ... end
> for ... do ... end for
> for ... do ... endfor
How can you possibly see this variety as being an advantage? Pick one,
and be done with it - consistency is important.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-11 22:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5a2ef206$0$1842$e4fe514c@textnews.kpn.nl> |
| In reply to | #124180 |
On 11-12-2017 21:44, bartc wrote:
> On 11/12/2017 19:01, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 1:00:33 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
>
>> I think the {..} is far superior across the board.
>
> There are some problems with {...}; have I ever mentioned them?(If you
> don't remember, they are the first topic here:
> https://github.com/bartg/langs/blob/master/features.md)
>
> But clearly you like punctuation:
>
> C: if (a==b && c==d) {s1; s2; s3;} else {s4; s5; s6;}
>
> M: if a=b and c=d then s1; s2; s3 else s4; s5; s6 endif
>
cut
Why dont you switch to basic? That seems to do what you want.......
In pinch you could use BBC Basic.
From Google:
BBC BASIC - Write your own Windows programs
www.bbcbasic.co.uk/bbcwin/bbcwin.html
BBC BASIC for Windows is an advanced implementation of BBC BASIC for PCs
running Microsoft Windows™ (Windows 98, Me, 2000, XP, Vista, Windows 7,
Windows 8/8.1 or Windows 10), providing the programmer with a familiar
language but with a modern interface.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-11 21:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <LZCXB.170481$B61.85664@fx42.am4> |
| In reply to | #124184 |
On 11/12/2017 21:00, Sjouke Burry wrote:
> On 11-12-2017 21:44, bartc wrote:
>> On 11/12/2017 19:01, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 1:00:33 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
>>
>>> I think the {..} is far superior across the board.
>>
>> There are some problems with {...}; have I ever mentioned them?(If you
>> don't remember, they are the first topic here:
>> https://github.com/bartg/langs/blob/master/features.md)
>>
>> But clearly you like punctuation:
>>
>> C: if (a==b && c==d) {s1; s2; s3;} else {s4; s5; s6;}
>>
>> M: if a=b and c=d then s1; s2; s3 else s4; s5; s6 endif
>>
> cut
> Why dont you switch to basic? That seems to do what you want.......
The C preprocessor happens to use:
#if
#elif
#else
#endif
Perhaps YOU guys ought to switch to Basic too!
--
bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-12 09:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <p0o5d7$55b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124180 |
On 11/12/17 21:44, bartc wrote:
> On 11/12/2017 19:01, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 1:00:33 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
>
>> I think the {..} is far superior across the board.
>
> There are some problems with {...}; have I ever mentioned them?(If you
> don't remember, they are the first topic here:
> https://github.com/bartg/langs/blob/master/features.md)
>
> But clearly you like punctuation:
>
> C: if (a==b && c==d) {s1; s2; s3;} else {s4; s5; s6;}
if ((a == b) && (c == d)) {
s1;
s2;
s3;
} else {
s4;
s5;
s6;
}
>
> M: if a=b and c=d then s1; s2; s3 else s4; s5; s6 endif
if (a = b) and (c = d) then
s1
s2
s3
else
s4
s5
s6
endif
Readability is mainly about clear structuring of the code, not the petty
details of whether you have a semicolon or not, or how your brackets are
written..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-11 21:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87374h0wp7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #124151 |
bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 11/12/2017 16:01, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 10:33:47 AM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
>
>> In my experience, C is about as clean as it gets
<snip>
> You really think C has clean syntax?
>
> C: for (i=1; i<=20; ++i) printf("%d %f\n", i, sqrt(i));
>
> M: for i to 20 do println i,sqrt i od
What about
C: for (int i = 0; i < 20; i += 2) printf("%3d %5.3f\n", i, sqrt(i));
? My point (not a very obscure one but it's best to be clear) is that
your C example seems to map to what M does "by default" so the
comparison might be skewed.
> C M
>
> Parentheses: 6 0
> Semicolons: 3 0
> Operators: 3 0
> Format codes: 2 0
> Strings: 1 0
> Escape codes: 1 0
> Commas: 2 1
> How many i's: 5 3
You didn't count keywords. Of course some of these higher counts are in
C's favour: having a newline escape is, in my opinion, better than
having more than one kind of print statement (or function). And some
people might argue that having *some* parentheses is cleaner than having
none.
By the way, I agree that it's a stretch to say that C's syntax is as
clean as it gets. I just don't think it's this simple to compare.
<snip>
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web