Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #75866 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-10-10 01:30 -0400 |
| Last post | 2025-10-15 18:11 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 277 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-10 01:30 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-10-10 08:20 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-10 11:03 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-10 11:42 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 02:15 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-11 11:09 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-11 11:57 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-12 12:53 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-12 17:50 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 21:30 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-12 12:56 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 02:15 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-10-10 09:29 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-10 03:34 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-10-10 13:06 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 02:17 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-10 21:42 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-10-10 23:02 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 02:42 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-11 18:48 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 22:15 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-12 23:08 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security apapmurray <apap.murray@mail.com> - 2025-10-11 14:26 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-13 03:07 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-13 10:42 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-10-13 12:47 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-13 16:34 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-13 17:41 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-13 19:07 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-13 18:22 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-14 01:44 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-14 06:36 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 10:40 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-14 23:02 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-14 23:31 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-15 01:25 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-14 22:57 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-10-17 16:13 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-17 22:55 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-18 05:40 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-18 03:12 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-18 11:16 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-18 21:54 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 03:32 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-20 18:01 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-20 20:52 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-21 02:25 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-21 00:47 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-21 09:42 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-21 22:58 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-21 23:52 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-22 05:31 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-22 01:57 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-22 12:12 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-22 23:57 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-23 04:06 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-10-22 21:45 -0700
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-23 03:22 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-23 19:30 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-23 09:05 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-23 19:35 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-23 09:04 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-23 19:16 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-22 05:19 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-22 12:39 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-22 18:03 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-10-22 15:27 -0700
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-21 22:42 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-18 18:42 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 04:24 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-19 11:34 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-18 11:06 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 03:04 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-19 19:33 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-20 01:40 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-20 10:03 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-20 23:31 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-21 09:28 +0100
Logic [Was: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-18 20:12 +0200
Re: Logic [Was: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security] c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 04:16 -0400
Re: Logic [Was: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-19 14:03 +0200
Re: Logic [Was: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security] Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-19 22:50 +0100
Re: Logic [Was: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-20 00:18 +0200
Re: Logic [Was: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security] Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-20 01:57 +0000
Re: Logic [Was: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security] rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-20 05:14 +0000
Re: Logic [Was: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-20 10:18 +0200
Re: Logic [Was: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security] c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-20 02:10 -0400
Re: Logic [Was: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security] Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-20 18:01 +0000
Re: Logic [Was: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security] rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-20 04:57 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-15 05:27 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 12:18 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 01:03 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-15 05:36 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-15 05:23 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-15 05:10 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-14 19:34 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 12:24 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-15 21:11 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 01:54 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-16 07:02 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-10-17 16:17 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-17 17:30 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-16 00:16 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 02:32 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-16 11:55 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 01:19 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-16 11:29 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-17 00:48 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-17 22:41 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-18 05:29 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-18 02:45 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-18 10:53 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 02:38 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-18 17:39 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-10-18 18:50 -0700
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 04:26 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-19 11:37 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 03:52 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-19 12:02 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-18 18:31 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-10-18 18:51 -0700
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 04:23 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-19 11:31 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-18 10:50 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-18 18:40 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-19 11:33 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-19 19:10 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-20 01:10 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-20 10:02 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-20 18:55 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-10-20 12:30 -0700
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-20 20:57 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-21 00:31 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-21 09:37 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-10-21 13:54 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-21 15:46 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-21 23:02 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-22 00:13 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-22 04:44 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-22 01:49 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-22 12:35 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-22 12:35 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-22 18:03 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-10-22 14:50 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-22 15:01 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-22 21:50 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-10-23 09:43 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-23 18:56 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-23 00:32 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-23 09:11 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-21 23:17 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-22 11:58 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-21 22:22 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-22 04:36 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-22 01:36 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-22 11:42 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-21 00:06 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-20 20:56 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-21 02:45 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-21 01:09 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-21 19:13 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-22 11:38 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-22 21:49 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-22 23:20 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 02:37 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-19 11:53 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-18 10:47 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 02:35 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-19 11:49 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-20 01:59 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-20 02:28 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-10-17 16:19 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-17 22:07 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-10-17 17:57 -0700
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-18 10:44 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 02:15 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-19 11:39 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-17 22:52 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-18 11:02 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 02:50 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-19 11:57 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-10-13 11:45 -0700
Recursion and Fibonnaci (was: Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-13 23:26 +0100
Re: Recursion and Fibonnaci Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-10-14 00:13 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-14 00:13 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 10:18 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-10-14 10:31 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 11:08 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-14 19:02 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-14 21:46 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-15 04:46 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-15 05:36 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 12:13 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-15 21:07 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-14 23:11 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-14 18:50 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 12:13 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-15 21:14 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 02:23 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-16 00:21 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 02:39 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-16 07:15 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-16 07:12 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-16 18:43 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-14 17:20 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 12:08 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-14 18:31 +0000
Computer Science (was: Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 23:27 +0100
Re: Computer Science (was: Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-15 04:40 +0000
Re: Computer Science (was: Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-15 05:36 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-14 21:29 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-15 05:36 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-15 03:41 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 12:33 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-16 00:23 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 01:31 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-16 07:17 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-16 11:54 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-17 00:41 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-15 05:42 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-14 23:04 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-10-15 08:39 -0700
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-16 00:17 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 02:36 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-16 06:57 +0000
OT: Examples for teaching recursion in programming (was: Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-16 10:13 +0100
Re: OT: Examples for teaching recursion in programming Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-16 17:42 +0100
Re: OT: Examples for teaching recursion in programming (was: Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-10-16 15:47 -0700
Re: OT: Examples for teaching recursion in programming Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-17 00:43 +0000
GOTO (was: Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-13 23:48 +0100
Re: GOTO (was: Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-14 00:30 +0000
Re: GOTO c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-14 01:19 -0400
Re: GOTO The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 10:31 +0100
Re: GOTO Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-10-14 08:21 +0100
Re: GOTO The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 10:34 +0100
Re: GOTO c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-14 20:57 -0400
Re: GOTO The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 10:29 +0100
Re: GOTO The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 10:21 +0100
Re: GOTO Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 11:42 +0100
Re: GOTO The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 13:02 +0100
Re: GOTO rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-14 19:08 +0000
Re: GOTO Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 23:20 +0100
Re: GOTO rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-15 05:53 +0000
Re: GOTO The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 12:16 +0100
Re: GOTO Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 15:21 +0100
Re: GOTO Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-16 00:25 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-14 22:58 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-14 23:09 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-14 22:37 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2025-10-14 23:41 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-15 00:15 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2025-10-15 04:32 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 12:29 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 01:23 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-16 11:38 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-15 05:04 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 12:30 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-16 21:53 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-17 00:48 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-17 12:56 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-17 08:22 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 12:26 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 01:22 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-10-16 08:11 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-16 06:53 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-10-16 08:56 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 03:04 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 03:03 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-16 07:08 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-16 11:37 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-10-16 12:39 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-16 11:57 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-10-16 15:31 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-16 10:25 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-16 11:34 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-10-16 12:40 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 18:11 +0100
Page 12 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 Next page →
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-14 23:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10cmkub$39hde$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #76075 |
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 11:45:36 -0700, John Ames wrote: > On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 19:07:50 +0100 The Natural Philosopher > <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>> The other way to spot CS weenies is their gratuitous use of >>> recursion. >> >> Possibly. It can be elegant. Or not. >> I used it in a maze building program very successfully. > > It definitely has its uses, but CS courses almost never seem to focus on > the *useful* applications because it's much easier to demonstrate the > concept with trivial examples like Fibonacci calculation, which is dead > easy to write but *atrocious* in terms of performance scaling :/ My first exposure to recursion was not Fibonacci, but Ackermann’s function. Feel free to try to come up with a non-recursive implementation of that. ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-15 08:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20251015083926.0000473b@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #76143 |
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 23:04:43 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > > It definitely has its uses, but CS courses almost never seem to > > focus on the *useful* applications because it's much easier to > > demonstrate the concept with trivial examples like Fibonacci > > calculation, which is dead easy to write but *atrocious* in terms > > of performance scaling :/ > > My first exposure to recursion was not Fibonacci, but Ackermann’s > function. > > Feel free to try to come up with a non-recursive implementation of > that. ;) That's definitely a better example, though for classroom purposes it'd probably be best to find something with both *A.* practical application in a real-world context (Ackermann *does* have uses, but they're pretty deep in mathematics) and *B.* a real case to be made for a recursive solution beyond simple novelty value.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-16 00:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10cpdjj$1ru9$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #76199 |
On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:39:26 -0700, John Ames wrote: > ... for classroom purposes it'd probably be best to find something > with both *A.* practical application in a real-world context ... and > *B.* a real case to be made for a recursive solution beyond simple > novelty value. How about parsing JSON and XML, then? They are so heavily used in real-world software development these days, it becomes helpful to understand how to deal with them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-16 02:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sE2dnQPUGeDhD231nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #76212 |
On 10/15/25 20:17, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:39:26 -0700, John Ames wrote: > >> ... for classroom purposes it'd probably be best to find something >> with both *A.* practical application in a real-world context ... and >> *B.* a real case to be made for a recursive solution beyond simple >> novelty value. > > How about parsing JSON and XML, then? They are so heavily used in > real-world software development these days, it becomes helpful to > understand how to deal with them. 'Parsing' is always "great fun" ! :-) Python seems to be best for what's usually needed. I often 'cheat' by running os.system() on the base Linux utilities and then parsing what I need out of the results. Seems crude, but it makes dev much quicker on the whole. The weakness is if they ever change the output format.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-16 06:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mlbjaeFgmi0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #76212 |
On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 00:17:55 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:39:26 -0700, John Ames wrote: > >> ... for classroom purposes it'd probably be best to find something with >> both *A.* practical application in a real-world context ... and *B.* a >> real case to be made for a recursive solution beyond simple novelty >> value. > > How about parsing JSON and XML, then? They are so heavily used in > real-world software development these days, it becomes helpful to > understand how to deal with them. I always turned XML over to expat. https://libexpat.github.io/ Setting up the handlers for the different depths for the first time takes some trial and error but it's fast once you understand the patterns. For documents where I'm trying to produce human readable output I use XSLT. Writing a parser wouldn't be difficult but why reinvent the wheel and have to fix all the edge case bugs that were already handled. I could use expat because it was public domain. It finally was given a MIT license but no StallmanShit (tm).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-16 10:13 +0100 |
| Subject | OT: Examples for teaching recursion in programming (was: Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security) |
| Message-ID | <10cqcvd$8qkp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #76212 |
On 2025-10-16, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:39:26 -0700, John Ames wrote: > >> ... for classroom purposes it'd probably be best to find something >> with both *A.* practical application in a real-world context ... and >> *B.* a real case to be made for a recursive solution beyond simple >> novelty value. > > How about parsing JSON and XML, then? They are so heavily used in > real-world software development these days, it becomes helpful to > understand how to deal with them. That, at least at first sight, appears to be in a different ballpark for the complexity of the problem that has to be understood. I mean, Fibonnaci can be explained and understood concisely, but for XML, JSON or JSONx, how simple can it get? (Well, maybe it actually can be used as an example in a way that takes out a lot of complexity?) (Should this subthread get x-posted into e.g. comp.programming or is that group not active?) -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-16 17:42 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Examples for teaching recursion in programming |
| Message-ID | <wwvcy6mg5n9.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #76246 |
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> writes: > On 2025-10-16, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:39:26 -0700, John Ames wrote: >>> ... for classroom purposes it'd probably be best to find something >>> with both *A.* practical application in a real-world context ... and >>> *B.* a real case to be made for a recursive solution beyond simple >>> novelty value. >> >> How about parsing JSON and XML, then? They are so heavily used in >> real-world software development these days, it becomes helpful to >> understand how to deal with them. > > That, at least at first sight, appears to be in a different ballpark > for the complexity of the problem that has to be understood. XML is way too large to be a teaching exercise. JSON makes more sense an exercise, albeit one in parsing; it’d be an absurdly complex choice if the point is just teaching recursion. I’d give the students strtod rather than make them to string-to-binary64 themselves, since that’s hardly the point, but I’d leave them to deal with the crazy treatment of non-BMP code points themselves. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-16 15:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Examples for teaching recursion in programming (was: Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security) |
| Message-ID | <20251016154718.0000730c@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #76246 |
On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 10:13:17 +0100 Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> ... for classroom purposes it'd probably be best to find something > >> with both *A.* practical application in a real-world context ... > >> and *B.* a real case to be made for a recursive solution beyond > >> simple novelty value. > > > > How about parsing JSON and XML, then? They are so heavily used in > > real-world software development these days, it becomes helpful to > > understand how to deal with them. > > That, at least at first sight, appears to be in a different ballpark > for the complexity of the problem that has to be understood. Yeah, it's a puzzler - parsing in general probably *is* a good example of useful applications for recursion, but a lot of the applications themselves are large and hairy enough that you might be hard-pressed to use them as a teaching aid. But then, is there a simpler example that isn't just a toy language...?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-17 00:43 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Examples for teaching recursion in programming |
| Message-ID | <10cs3ff$p2d4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #76246 |
On 16 Oct 2025 23:00:18 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote: > The master turned and smiled. > > "If a call returns," he said, > "was it ever gone?" At this point, the Disciple lightly tapped the Master on the head with a tactical nuclear missile. And the Master was Enlightened.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-13 23:48 +0100 |
| Subject | GOTO (was: Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security) |
| Message-ID | <10cjvkn$2gnrl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #76071 |
On 2025-10-13, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > It's funny how CS weenies loudly decry the undisciplined use > of GOTOs, while the undisciplined use of function calls is OK. > It's still spaghetti code - but since a function call is just > a GOTO paired with a COME FROM, you're running double strands. > > The other way to spot CS weenies is their gratuitous use of > recursion. I think the concern about GOTO as opposed to e.g. a function call where supported is that the function call makes it clear where it is called and to where it returns, while GOTO does not come with that structure. This can have an impact in understanding the program, but perhaps more importantly makes it harder to analyze the program. And that's, broadly speaking, what computer science is about. Also, I thought spaghetti code referred mostly to code which lacks structure and organization? -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-14 00:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: GOTO (was: Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security) |
| Message-ID | <ml5js9FegocU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #76087 |
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 23:48:55 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote:
> I think the concern about GOTO as opposed to e.g. a function call where
> supported is that the function call makes it clear where it is called
> and to where it returns, while GOTO does not come with that structure.
It's nowhere near as much fun as siglongjmp() :).
Other than the bad old days of FORTRAN my goto use is local to the
function, something like:
if (test_failed) {
goto exit;
}
It allows the function to have one entrance and one exit without the
convoluted and deeply nested conditionals that might be needed otherwise.
I think TNP pointed out in assembler all you have is JMP and its friends.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-14 01:19 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: GOTO |
| Message-ID | <RI2cncKQDJLRQHD1nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #76091 |
On 10/13/25 20:30, rbowman wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 23:48:55 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote:
>
>> I think the concern about GOTO as opposed to e.g. a function call where
>> supported is that the function call makes it clear where it is called
>> and to where it returns, while GOTO does not come with that structure.
>
> It's nowhere near as much fun as siglongjmp() :).
>
> Other than the bad old days of FORTRAN my goto use is local to the
> function, something like:
>
> if (test_failed) {
> goto exit;
> }
>
> It allows the function to have one entrance and one exit without the
> convoluted and deeply nested conditionals that might be needed otherwise.
> I think TNP pointed out in assembler all you have is JMP and its friends.
Goto DOES have good uses. Yea, 'structuring' can
sometimes do it, but oft in a messy fashion if
you need to jump out of the middle of something.
Did an app for a handheld device long back which
used goto to good advantage ... made it super easy
to jump back and forth in the data-entry 'ladder'.
Input for each entry prompt was a few-line little
'module'. With goto you could repeat, or go back,
very easily.
The problem with goto is that it became severely
over-used, created 'spaghetti code' almost impossible
to figure out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-14 10:31 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: GOTO |
| Message-ID | <10cl59q$2q6c4$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #76093 |
On 14/10/2025 06:19, c186282 wrote:
> On 10/13/25 20:30, rbowman wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 23:48:55 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote:
>>
>>> I think the concern about GOTO as opposed to e.g. a function call where
>>> supported is that the function call makes it clear where it is called
>>> and to where it returns, while GOTO does not come with that structure.
>>
>> It's nowhere near as much fun as siglongjmp() :).
>>
>> Other than the bad old days of FORTRAN my goto use is local to the
>> function, something like:
>>
>> if (test_failed) {
>> goto exit;
>> }
>>
>> It allows the function to have one entrance and one exit without the
>> convoluted and deeply nested conditionals that might be needed otherwise.
>> I think TNP pointed out in assembler all you have is JMP and its friends.
>
> Goto DOES have good uses. Yea, 'structuring' can
> sometimes do it, but oft in a messy fashion if
> you need to jump out of the middle of something.
>
> Did an app for a handheld device long back which
> used goto to good advantage ... made it super easy
> to jump back and forth in the data-entry 'ladder'.
> Input for each entry prompt was a few-line little
> 'module'. With goto you could repeat, or go back,
> very easily.
>
> The problem with goto is that it became severely
> over-used, created 'spaghetti code' almost impossible
> to figure out.
>
>
Exactly. It wasn't the GOTO at fault, it was the failure of people to
write clean workmanlike well structured and commented code.
Personally I like a function to do one clear and simple thing. The
moment a code fragment can be pushed into a function I do it.
And these days 'inline' removes the performance penalty anyway.
--
“Progress is precisely that which rules and regulations did not foresee,”
– Ludwig von Mises
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-14 08:21 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: GOTO |
| Message-ID | <10cktmc$2ohpv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #76091 |
On 10/14/25 01:30, rbowman wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 23:48:55 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote:
>
>> I think the concern about GOTO as opposed to e.g. a function call where
>> supported is that the function call makes it clear where it is called
>> and to where it returns, while GOTO does not come with that structure.
>
> It's nowhere near as much fun as siglongjmp() :).
>
> Other than the bad old days of FORTRAN my goto use is local to the
> function, something like:
>
> if (test_failed) {
> goto exit;
> }
>
> It allows the function to have one entrance and one exit without the
> convoluted and deeply nested conditionals that might be needed otherwise.
> I think TNP pointed out in assembler all you have is JMP and its friends.
By the time I came to look at an assembler (6502), it had jump
subroutine JSR. I can't remember about pushing parameters on the stack.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-14 10:34 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: GOTO |
| Message-ID | <10cl5f1$2q6c4$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #76102 |
On 14/10/2025 08:21, Pancho wrote:
> On 10/14/25 01:30, rbowman wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 23:48:55 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote:
>>
>>> I think the concern about GOTO as opposed to e.g. a function call where
>>> supported is that the function call makes it clear where it is called
>>> and to where it returns, while GOTO does not come with that structure.
>>
>> It's nowhere near as much fun as siglongjmp() :).
>>
>> Other than the bad old days of FORTRAN my goto use is local to the
>> function, something like:
>>
>> if (test_failed) {
>> goto exit;
>> }
>>
>> It allows the function to have one entrance and one exit without the
>> convoluted and deeply nested conditionals that might be needed otherwise.
>> I think TNP pointed out in assembler all you have is JMP and its friends.
>
> By the time I came to look at an assembler (6502), it had jump
> subroutine JSR. I can't remember about pushing parameters on the stack.
JSR is the same as CALL in INTEL, IIRC.
I.e an automatic pushing of the program counter into the stack and than
a jump
Explicitly pushing other registers into the stack was a manual
operation. That you might do before or at the start of the subroutine,
depending.
--
"And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch".
Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-14 20:57 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: GOTO |
| Message-ID | <34ecncUoOcAebHP1nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #76102 |
On 10/14/25 03:21, Pancho wrote:
> On 10/14/25 01:30, rbowman wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 23:48:55 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote:
>>
>>> I think the concern about GOTO as opposed to e.g. a function call where
>>> supported is that the function call makes it clear where it is called
>>> and to where it returns, while GOTO does not come with that structure.
>>
>> It's nowhere near as much fun as siglongjmp() :).
>>
>> Other than the bad old days of FORTRAN my goto use is local to the
>> function, something like:
>>
>> if (test_failed) {
>> goto exit;
>> }
>>
>> It allows the function to have one entrance and one exit without the
>> convoluted and deeply nested conditionals that might be needed otherwise.
>> I think TNP pointed out in assembler all you have is JMP and its friends.
>
> By the time I came to look at an assembler (6502), it had jump
> subroutine JSR. I can't remember about pushing parameters on the stack.
https://www.nesdev.org/wiki/6502_cycle_times
JSR uses six cycles while JMP uses three, in
odd cases five.
A big seller for those old units was video games
and the CPUs were pretty marginal - so saving any
cycles would usually be a priority.
According to :
http://www.6502.org/users/obelisk/6502/instructions.html
TSX Transfer stack pointer to X N,Z
TXS Transfer X to stack pointer
PHA Push accumulator on stack
PHP Push processor status on stack
PLA Pull accumulator from stack N,Z
PLP Pull processor status from stack All
You could load the accumulator, push its value on
the (tiny) stack, and then get it back inside
the sub. Normally you'd also want to push all
the registers on the stack too, and retrieve
them on return from the sub. Again, lots of
cycles. Kind of forget recursion too, the stack
was both small and of fixed size. You could
make your own FakeStack in RAM as a global
and manage it yourself. Not as fast though.
So, generally, where-ever practical, try to
use JMP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-14 10:29 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: GOTO |
| Message-ID | <10cl551$2q6c4$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #76091 |
On 14/10/2025 01:30, rbowman wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 23:48:55 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote:
>
>> I think the concern about GOTO as opposed to e.g. a function call where
>> supported is that the function call makes it clear where it is called
>> and to where it returns, while GOTO does not come with that structure.
>
> It's nowhere near as much fun as siglongjmp() :).
>
> Other than the bad old days of FORTRAN my goto use is local to the
> function, something like:
>
> if (test_failed) {
> goto exit;
> }
>
> It allows the function to have one entrance and one exit without the
> convoluted and deeply nested conditionals that might be needed otherwise.
> I think TNP pointed out in assembler all you have is JMP and its friends.
It can get worse than that and still be better.
I think I mentioned before my attempts to squeeze new assembler code to
handle 80Mbyte drives into a DOS that had a 32MByte limit unless you
used bigger sectors than 512Bytes.
I noted that nearly every subroutine ended with
POP AX
POP BX
RET
and could have those bytes replaced with
JMP STDEXIT
...
STDEXIT:
POP AX
POP BX
RET
Likewise, a Telex comms program that I wrote had layers of subroutines
going from the handling of complete messages bodies down to receiving a
single character on the Telex hardware...To return upwards through all
the layers to handle fatal errors was simply for more complex than a
setjmp()/longjmp() pair to handle all the details of shutting down a
failed session...
--
Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-14 10:21 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: GOTO |
| Message-ID | <10cl4mf$2q6c4$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #76087 |
On 13/10/2025 23:48, Nuno Silva wrote: > I think the concern about GOTO as opposed to e.g. a function call where > supported is that the function call makes it clear where it is called > and to where it returns, while GOTO does not come with that structure. > > This can have an impact in understanding the program, but perhaps more > importantly makes it harder to analyze the program. And that's, broadly > speaking, what computer science is about. No. That is what software engineering is all about. Computer science is all about theory, elegance and obfuscation. -- “A leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader, who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say, “We did this ourselves.” ― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-14 11:42 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: GOTO |
| Message-ID | <10cl9f1$2rk26$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #76110 |
On 2025-10-14, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 13/10/2025 23:48, Nuno Silva wrote: >> I think the concern about GOTO as opposed to e.g. a function call where >> supported is that the function call makes it clear where it is called >> and to where it returns, while GOTO does not come with that structure. >> >> This can have an impact in understanding the program, but perhaps more >> importantly makes it harder to analyze the program. And that's, broadly >> speaking, what computer science is about. > > No. That is what software engineering is all about. I don't recall such analysis being in software engineering? Isn't it more of a realm of architecture, program design, design patterns, design documentation, and other relevant engineering documentation? > Computer science is all about theory, elegance and obfuscation. But said theory includes analysis, say, complexity analysis. And this can be more easily done(*) if the program is adequately structured into functions and isn't a spaghetti mess. (*) (That said, this in no way means such analysis is always possible or feasible, merely that it is made easier where possible.) -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-14 13:02 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: GOTO |
| Message-ID | <10cle4g$2t77s$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #76120 |
On 14/10/2025 11:42, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2025-10-14, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 13/10/2025 23:48, Nuno Silva wrote: >>> I think the concern about GOTO as opposed to e.g. a function call where >>> supported is that the function call makes it clear where it is called >>> and to where it returns, while GOTO does not come with that structure. >>> >>> This can have an impact in understanding the program, but perhaps more >>> importantly makes it harder to analyze the program. And that's, broadly >>> speaking, what computer science is about. >> >> No. That is what software engineering is all about. > > I don't recall such analysis being in software engineering? Isn't it > more of a realm of architecture, program design, design patterns, design > documentation, and other relevant engineering documentation? > Program design is where it comes in. The 'make it easy to understand for others and for a future you' leads naturally on yo 'dont spaghetti this code unless you also draw a flow chart' And once you do draw a flow chart it probably is enough to make you realise how to make the code much easier to understand by removing the spaghetti and concentrating on the little meatballs. >> Computer science is all about theory, elegance and obfuscation. > > But said theory includes analysis, say, complexity analysis. And this > can be more easily done(*) if the program is adequately structured into > functions and isn't a spaghetti mess. > Doesn't mandate it though. > (*) (That said, this in no way means such analysis is always possible or > feasible, merely that it is made easier where possible.) > -- “Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web