Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.unix.programmer > #15559 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-03-29 01:14 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-10-01 22:22 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 966 — 57 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.unix.programmer
Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-29 01:14 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-03-29 03:10 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-03-29 09:55 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Josef Möllers <josef@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-29 12:10 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-29 11:40 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-03-29 12:02 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-03-29 17:09 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-03-29 17:18 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-03-29 17:25 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-03-30 10:16 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-03-30 11:35 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-03-30 18:10 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-01 08:31 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-03-30 19:27 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-03-29 08:44 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-03-29 16:02 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-03-29 09:10 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-03-29 17:13 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-03-29 17:20 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-03-29 17:58 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2024-03-29 14:51 -0400
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> - 2024-03-29 16:38 -0300
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2024-03-29 18:32 -0400
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-03-30 00:14 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-03-30 10:19 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-03-30 18:46 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-01 08:32 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> - 2024-04-01 06:49 -0300
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-01 14:47 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-04-01 18:25 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> - 2024-04-01 21:26 -0300
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-02 00:57 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-04-01 18:18 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-02 03:01 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-04-02 05:28 -0400
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-03 00:25 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> - 2024-04-02 15:20 -0300
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-04-02 18:58 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-04-02 18:59 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-04-02 22:05 +0200
Too much? (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-04-02 20:16 +0000
Re: Too much? (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-04-02 20:20 +0000
Re: Too much? (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-04-02 20:36 +0000
Re: Too much? (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-04-03 09:38 +0200
Re: Too much? (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-04-03 19:06 -0400
Football (Was: Too much? (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages)) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-04-03 23:22 +0000
Re: Too much? (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) Chris Elvidge <chris@mshome.net> - 2024-04-04 14:50 +0100
Re: Too much? (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-04 14:10 +0000
Re: Too much? (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-04-04 21:47 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-04-02 19:15 -0400
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-03 00:23 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> - 2024-04-03 07:18 -0300
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-04-02 16:18 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-04-02 16:33 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-03 00:23 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-04-03 09:50 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-03 07:53 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-03 07:53 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-04-03 09:00 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-04-03 17:16 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-04 08:13 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-04 23:29 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-05 09:17 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-04-05 12:40 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-05 15:09 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-04-06 01:10 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-05 23:11 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Alan Bawden <alan@csail.mit.edu> - 2024-04-05 19:35 -0400
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-06 00:25 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-08 08:20 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-08 22:14 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-08 15:58 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-04-09 08:47 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-09 10:07 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-04-09 18:57 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-04-09 10:11 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-09 08:38 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-04-09 15:22 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-10 00:32 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-04-10 01:35 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-04-08 23:02 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-04-06 01:01 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-04-06 15:44 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-06 15:03 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-04-06 01:10 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-06 09:00 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Alan Bawden <alan@csail.mit.edu> - 2024-04-07 06:04 -0400
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-08 07:47 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-04-08 14:35 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-08 14:33 +0000
Words to the wise (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-04-08 15:20 +0000
Re: Words to the wise (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-08 15:22 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-04-08 19:32 +0000
Phrases that should be banned on Usenet (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-04-08 19:44 +0000
Re: Phrases that should be banned on Usenet (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-09 09:24 +0200
Re: Phrases that should be banned on Usenet (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-04-09 10:39 +0200
Re: Phrases that should be banned on Usenet (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-04-09 15:30 +0000
Re: Phrases that should be banned on Usenet (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-09 21:48 +0200
Re: Phrases that should be banned on Usenet (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-04-09 20:20 +0000
Re: Phrases that should be banned on Usenet (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-10 00:31 +0000
Re: Phrases that should be banned on Usenet (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) Chris Elvidge <chris@mshome.net> - 2024-04-10 11:41 +0100
Re: Phrases that should be banned on Usenet (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-04-10 15:40 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-09 07:45 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-04-09 07:57 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2024-04-09 19:51 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-10 07:32 +0000
Keith's favorite sub-topic [News Flash: Moron tries to defend his sexism online] (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-04-10 12:46 +0000
Re: Keith's favorite sub-topic [News Flash: Moron tries to defend his sexism online] (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-10 15:24 +0200
Re: Keith's favorite sub-topic [News Flash: Moron tries to defend his sexism online] (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-10 15:13 +0000
Re: Keith's favorite sub-topic [News Flash: Moron tries to defend his sexism online] (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-04-10 16:21 +0000
Re: Keith's favorite sub-topic [News Flash: Moron tries to defend his sexism online] (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-11 11:19 +0200
Re: Keith's favorite sub-topic [News Flash: Moron tries to defend his sexism online] (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-11 07:26 +0000
Re: Keith's favorite sub-topic [News Flash: Moron tries to defend his sexism online] (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-11 07:51 -0700
Re: Keith's favorite sub-topic [News Flash: Moron tries to defend his sexism online] (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-04-11 08:57 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-04-10 17:25 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-11 07:28 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-09 10:02 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-04-09 15:01 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-09 15:09 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-04-09 15:30 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-09 08:40 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-09 16:01 +0000
[meta] Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-08 14:00 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-04-10 00:36 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-04-10 12:05 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-05 18:30 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-04-05 20:47 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-05 23:08 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-06 18:57 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2024-04-06 19:32 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-06 23:54 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2024-04-07 14:43 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-07 21:05 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-08 14:53 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2024-04-10 10:10 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-10 14:43 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-10 19:03 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-04-07 14:45 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-08 14:11 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-04-07 15:47 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-04-06 15:07 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-06 22:57 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-07 01:31 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-07 01:47 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-06 23:57 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-04-06 20:41 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-06 08:58 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-06 23:49 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-08 07:44 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-08 22:16 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-06 18:49 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Sebastian <sebastian@here.com.invalid> - 2024-08-06 08:04 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-06 23:34 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-07 13:43 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-08 07:33 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Bozo User <anthk@disroot.org> - 2024-09-30 20:04 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2024-08-08 17:25 +0200
Trading insults about Lisp coding styles (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-08-08 16:05 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-08 23:41 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-09 00:07 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Sebastian <sebastian@here.com.invalid> - 2024-08-25 07:32 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-25 07:48 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Sebastian <sebastian@here.com.invalid> - 2024-08-26 16:13 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-26 21:31 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Sebastian <sebastian@here.com.invalid> - 2024-08-27 03:15 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-27 04:44 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> - 2024-08-27 19:56 -0300
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-27 23:26 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> - 2024-08-27 21:08 -0300
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-28 00:09 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-27 19:10 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-10-18 00:34 +0100
OT: "All Rights Reserved" misleading nonsense (was: Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-18 09:28 +0100
Re: OT: "All Rights Reserved" misleading nonsense yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-10-18 10:00 +0042
Re: OT: "All Rights Reserved" misleading nonsense (was: Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-18 20:26 +0000
Re: OT: "All Rights Reserved" misleading nonsense Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-19 11:30 +0100
Re: OT: "All Rights Reserved" misleading nonsense Jim <jim.beard@verizon.net> - 2025-10-19 14:43 +0000
Re: OT: "All Rights Reserved" misleading nonsense Brian Patrie <bpatrie@bellsouth.spamisicky.net> - 2025-10-21 15:49 -0500
Re: OT: "All Rights Reserved" misleading nonsense Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-21 21:58 +0000
Re: OT: "All Rights Reserved" misleading nonsense Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-10-22 11:40 +0200
Re: OT: "All Rights Reserved" misleading nonsense Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-22 23:13 +0100
Re: OT: "All Rights Reserved" misleading nonsense Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-10-23 04:56 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-10-17 17:13 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-04-03 18:30 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-04-03 10:19 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-04-03 21:33 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-04-03 12:58 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-01 21:41 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2024-04-01 17:11 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> - 2024-03-29 18:12 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-30 19:32 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-03-30 20:19 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Bozo User <anthk@disroot.org> - 2024-09-30 20:04 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-03-29 17:12 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> - 2024-03-29 08:09 -0300
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-29 21:06 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> - 2024-03-29 21:24 -0300
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-30 01:11 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> - 2024-03-29 21:17 -0300
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-03-30 11:28 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> - 2024-03-30 13:37 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-03-30 19:25 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> - 2024-03-30 21:48 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-01 11:15 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-04-01 19:42 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-01 13:25 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-02 00:20 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-04-02 05:13 -0400
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-01 13:44 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-01 14:30 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-04-01 22:40 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-04-02 15:30 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-02 08:43 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-04-02 16:09 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-04-02 18:50 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-04-03 15:45 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-04-03 16:56 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-04-01 15:56 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-02 00:19 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-01 21:43 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Javier <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-04-07 00:01 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-07 02:02 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-04-06 20:46 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-12 15:55 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Bozo User <anthk@disroot.org> - 2024-09-30 20:04 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-30 21:04 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages usuario <anthk@disroot.org> - 2024-10-01 20:18 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-02 07:10 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages usuario <anthk@disroot.org> - 2024-10-02 12:52 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-02 16:00 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-10-09 22:25 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-10 08:38 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-10-10 16:09 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-10 15:34 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-10-10 17:55 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-10-10 19:14 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-10-10 21:31 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-10-11 00:09 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-10-11 15:47 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-11 15:15 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-10-11 15:45 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-11 15:59 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-10-11 16:28 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-12 08:39 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-10-12 13:53 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-10-12 14:50 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-10-12 15:32 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-10-12 15:51 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-10-12 16:36 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-13 08:18 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-10-13 14:29 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-13 14:03 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-10-13 16:21 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-13 14:56 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-10-13 13:43 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-13 14:54 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-10-13 17:17 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-10-13 15:30 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-13 16:02 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-10-13 18:28 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-13 21:10 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-10-14 01:16 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-14 01:45 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-10-14 14:13 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2024-10-14 07:47 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-10-14 14:27 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2024-10-14 23:25 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-14 21:03 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2024-10-14 23:26 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-14 08:23 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-10-14 14:36 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-10-14 14:58 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-14 14:59 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-10-14 17:23 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-15 13:27 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-10-15 15:18 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-14 21:04 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-10-13 20:15 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-14 08:25 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-10-14 13:38 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-14 14:47 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-10-14 14:53 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-14 17:27 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-10-14 17:55 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-10-14 17:43 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-13 21:09 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-13 21:08 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-10-13 15:08 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-10-13 15:52 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-10-13 17:20 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-10-13 20:29 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-10-14 01:20 +0100
Re: On overly rigid definitions (was Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-10-14 00:58 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-10-13 15:02 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-10-13 16:31 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-10-13 20:06 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-10-13 20:30 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-10-11 16:37 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-10-11 19:01 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-12 08:40 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-11 20:58 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-12 08:42 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-10-12 14:37 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> - 2024-10-12 17:49 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-13 08:20 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-10-13 21:25 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-10-12 20:50 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-12 21:25 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-13 08:22 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-13 20:33 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-10-11 00:07 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-10-11 16:15 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-11 08:17 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-10-11 19:37 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-11 01:33 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Eric Pozharski <apple.universe@posteo.net> - 2024-10-12 16:39 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-13 08:19 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-10-13 14:55 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-10-13 21:33 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-14 08:28 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-10-14 11:38 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-14 11:05 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-10-14 16:04 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-14 15:39 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-13 20:34 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Sebastian <sebastian@here.com.invalid> - 2024-11-11 07:31 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-11 10:06 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Wolfgang Agnes <wagnes@jemoni.to> - 2024-11-11 08:28 -0300
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-11-11 16:21 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-11 20:55 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-12 10:14 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-12 09:21 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-12 10:31 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-12 09:53 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-12 15:05 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-12 15:09 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Wolfgang Agnes <wagnes@jemoni.to> - 2024-11-12 13:47 -0300
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-11 21:24 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-12 10:23 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Wolfgang Agnes <wagnes@jemoni.to> - 2024-11-12 13:50 -0300
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-12 20:29 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) - 2024-11-19 18:43 -0800
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-20 04:34 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-20 08:21 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-20 11:51 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-20 11:30 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-20 16:38 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-20 16:38 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-20 17:54 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-11-20 10:03 -0800
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-21 08:18 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-11-21 07:56 -0800
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-21 14:13 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-21 16:06 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-21 08:13 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-11-21 07:58 -0800
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-20 17:50 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-21 14:40 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-21 15:07 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 13:30 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-22 15:41 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-22 15:52 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 17:18 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-22 17:35 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 17:43 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 17:43 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 17:17 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-22 17:48 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 18:12 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-22 18:48 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 19:05 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-22 19:24 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 19:46 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-11-22 17:26 -0500
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 23:06 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-11-22 22:49 -0500
[OT] Thunderbird Reply-button (was Re: <subject that has now for long nothing to do with the OP>) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-23 05:26 +0100
Re: [OT] Thunderbird Reply-button (was Re: <subject that has now for long nothing to do with the OP>) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-11-23 00:04 -0500
Re: [OT] Thunderbird Reply-button Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-23 06:09 +0100
Re: [OT] Thunderbird Reply-button James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-11-23 09:24 -0500
Re: [OT] Thunderbird Reply-button Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-23 20:14 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-23 13:53 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-11-22 18:14 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-11-22 18:22 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 18:30 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-22 18:59 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 19:15 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-22 19:26 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 19:51 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages mas@a4.home - 2024-11-21 15:46 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-11-21 16:08 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-21 17:31 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2024-11-21 17:53 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-21 17:19 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 14:14 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-22 15:27 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 21:14 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-22 22:09 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 23:10 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-11-22 17:16 -0500
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 22:34 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-11-22 23:44 -0500
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-23 14:05 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-11-23 10:22 -0500
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-23 16:38 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-27 13:59 +0000
Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-12-27 14:35 +0000
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-27 14:56 +0000
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-12-27 16:14 +0000
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2024-12-27 15:07 -0300
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-27 23:09 +0000
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-27 23:22 +0000
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-28 00:44 +0100
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-27 23:56 +0000
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-28 00:11 +0000
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2024-12-27 21:22 -0300
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-28 19:48 +0000
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-28 20:30 +0000
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-28 21:07 +0000
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-29 09:50 +0000
Why TF? (Was: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-12-29 10:33 +0000
Re: Why TF? (Was: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-29 10:38 +0000
Re: Why TF? (Was: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-29 21:45 +0100
Re: Why TF? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-29 23:01 +0000
Re: Why TF? (Was: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-30 09:35 +0000
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-29 13:07 +0000
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-29 14:09 +0000
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-12-29 16:41 -0500
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Eric Pozharski <apple.universe@posteo.net> - 2024-12-29 17:56 +0000
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-29 18:59 +0000
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2024-12-29 22:19 -0300
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-30 19:31 +0000
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2024-12-30 18:10 -0300
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-30 23:11 +0000
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-02 03:40 -0500
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-02 16:29 +0000
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-02 19:36 -0500
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-03 02:55 +0000
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-03 18:15 +0000
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-04 10:12 +0000
OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-01-04 08:31 -0300
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-04 11:40 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-04 22:13 +0000
Re: OT: Windows Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-01-04 19:17 -0300
Re: OT: Windows Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-05 00:47 +0000
Re: OT: Windows Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-01-09 22:27 -0300
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-05 16:40 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-05 17:14 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-05 21:09 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-06 08:36 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-06 14:08 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-06 14:21 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-06 15:05 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-06 15:55 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-06 16:46 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-01-06 12:42 -0500
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-06 18:16 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2025-01-06 18:24 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-06 18:52 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-07 08:36 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 13:18 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-07 14:05 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 14:14 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-07 15:13 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 15:35 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-07 15:53 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 16:10 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-07 17:01 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 17:23 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-08 08:23 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-08 12:19 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-08 13:36 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-01-07 17:16 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 17:40 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2025-01-06 17:53 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-06 20:28 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-06 20:36 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-01-06 20:38 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2025-01-07 00:49 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-07 02:14 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2025-01-07 08:59 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-07 14:59 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-08 02:36 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-08 03:23 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2025-01-08 07:52 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-08 12:21 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2025-01-08 14:01 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-08 14:41 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-08 15:05 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 13:59 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2025-01-07 15:54 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-07 15:56 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-08 02:36 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-08 08:27 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 16:17 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2025-01-07 16:13 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 17:01 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-07 08:37 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-06 15:22 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-06 16:00 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-06 16:39 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-07 08:34 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 14:13 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-07 15:11 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 16:02 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-07 16:56 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 17:19 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-08 08:20 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-08 13:00 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-08 13:40 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-08 16:05 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-08 09:55 -0800
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-08 18:38 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-15 16:46 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-01-15 20:20 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-16 09:40 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2025-01-16 15:01 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-01-08 20:27 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-15 16:47 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-01-15 20:27 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-15 22:55 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-16 09:43 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-16 14:51 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-16 15:47 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-01-16 17:34 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-16 15:56 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-16 16:53 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-07 15:24 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 17:31 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-07 19:09 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-08 08:26 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-09 04:39 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-06 20:27 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-06 20:36 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-06 20:26 +0000
Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-06 15:02 +0000
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-28 19:27 +0100
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-28 23:03 +0000
Re: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-28 02:07 +0000
Re: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-28 19:40 +0100
Re: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-28 23:00 +0000
Re: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-28 23:32 +0000
Re: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2024-12-28 19:02 -0600
Re: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-12-28 21:12 -0500
Re: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-29 09:54 +0000
Re: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-12-29 07:39 -0500
A herd of elephants (Was: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-12-29 14:32 +0000
Re: A herd of elephants (Was: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-29 22:03 +0100
Re: A herd of elephants (Was: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able) Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-12-29 19:49 -0500
Re: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-29 21:55 +0100
Re: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-29 22:07 +0100
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-12-28 14:26 -0500
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-29 21:10 +0100
Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-12-27 13:11 -0500
Re: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-27 23:11 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-27 14:56 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-27 23:22 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 07:43 -0800
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-12-27 17:39 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-12-27 13:15 -0500
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-12-27 19:14 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-28 00:38 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-22 12:14 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-22 11:56 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-22 20:33 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-11-21 19:12 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-22 10:09 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-11-22 18:18 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-11-23 11:40 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-22 12:17 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-11-22 18:19 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-22 20:20 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Ed Morton <mortonspam@gmail.com> - 2024-11-20 05:46 -0600
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-20 12:27 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-20 21:43 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-21 08:15 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-21 22:05 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-22 12:47 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 20:41 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-20 16:53 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Ed Morton <mortonspam@gmail.com> - 2024-11-23 18:17 -0600
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-20 12:21 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) - 2024-11-21 05:38 -0800
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-21 17:01 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-08 07:55 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Javier <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-04-08 17:54 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-08 22:21 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-12 15:48 +0200
I did not inhale (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-04-12 14:13 +0000
Re: I did not inhale (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-04-12 14:15 +0000
Re: I did not inhale (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-15 14:28 +0200
Re: I did not inhale (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-04-12 16:52 +0000
Re: I did not inhale Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> - 2024-04-12 20:52 -0300
Re: I did not inhale Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> - 2024-04-13 08:17 -0300
Re: I did not inhale kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-08-15 19:48 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-15 23:54 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-16 01:30 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-08-16 15:02 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-08-16 09:37 -0700
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-08-17 11:18 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-17 09:01 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-17 12:58 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-17 21:51 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-18 10:10 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-18 08:30 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-18 12:19 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-18 15:45 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-18 18:13 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-18 16:52 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-18 20:07 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-18 23:18 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-19 08:31 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Sebastian <sebastian@here.com.invalid> - 2024-08-25 07:50 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-25 12:32 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-08-25 13:41 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-25 22:02 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-08-25 10:48 -0400
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-25 22:00 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-08-18 22:15 +0100
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-08-18 08:55 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-18 09:21 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-18 16:46 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-18 20:11 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-19 04:54 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-19 09:09 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-19 17:40 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-18 23:14 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-19 09:37 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-19 10:40 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-19 12:39 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-19 14:59 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-19 17:35 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-19 15:56 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Bozo User <anthk@disroot.org> - 2024-09-30 20:04 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-19 21:09 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-20 08:52 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-20 07:21 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-20 10:15 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-21 01:00 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-20 09:44 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-20 10:27 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-20 15:09 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-20 17:20 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-21 00:59 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-21 10:07 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-21 23:42 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-08-20 09:59 -0400
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-21 01:12 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-19 13:14 -0700
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-08-19 13:30 -0700
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-20 07:22 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-19 08:45 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-19 13:03 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-19 13:28 -0700
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-19 23:43 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-19 23:03 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-20 08:57 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-20 07:22 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-08-20 10:25 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-08-21 06:10 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-21 06:45 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-18 08:17 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Eric Pozharski <apple.universe@posteo.net> - 2024-08-18 20:47 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-18 16:59 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-18 15:23 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-18 16:55 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-18 12:24 -0700
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-19 09:44 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-08-20 10:52 -0400
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-20 15:06 -0700
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-08-20 14:21 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-20 14:35 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-08-20 14:45 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-08-20 16:10 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-20 21:45 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-08-20 20:56 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-21 09:26 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-21 07:36 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-21 11:10 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-21 10:26 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-21 17:27 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-21 15:40 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-21 21:15 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-22 07:42 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-08-22 09:52 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-22 08:18 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-08-22 15:11 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-08-22 13:58 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-22 14:17 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-22 11:09 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-22 10:10 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-22 08:21 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-08-26 08:33 -0700
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-26 17:59 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-26 21:35 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-08-26 15:51 -0700
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-27 02:50 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Sebastian <sebastian@here.com.invalid> - 2024-08-27 03:21 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-08-27 09:39 +0100
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-27 11:26 +0100
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-08-27 13:46 +0100
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Sebastian <sebastian@here.com.invalid> - 2024-08-28 02:53 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-08-28 13:57 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-27 15:10 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-27 15:18 +0100
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2024-08-28 23:07 +0100
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-08-27 08:03 -0700
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-27 18:08 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-27 20:46 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-27 21:40 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Sebastian <sebastian@here.com.invalid> - 2024-08-28 03:19 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-28 12:45 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-28 22:49 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-27 21:34 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-27 14:49 -0700
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-27 23:28 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-27 19:10 -0700
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-28 05:30 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 13:29 -0700
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-28 23:02 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 17:23 -0700
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-29 01:19 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 19:19 -0700
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-30 23:52 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-30 21:37 -0700
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-30 21:39 -0700
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-29 14:05 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-30 23:49 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-31 17:06 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-03 00:09 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-03 10:46 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-03 21:56 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-04 09:30 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-29 14:01 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-29 23:03 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-29 16:57 -0700
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-30 02:55 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-08-30 14:01 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-30 10:01 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-28 17:48 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-28 17:43 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-28 20:48 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-28 20:27 +0100
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 13:37 -0700
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-28 21:44 +0100
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-28 23:44 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-28 22:49 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-29 00:21 +0100
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-29 01:16 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-29 11:49 +0100
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-29 13:31 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-29 13:50 +0100
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-29 14:24 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-08-29 08:52 -0700
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-29 21:27 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-08-30 08:14 -0700
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-30 18:42 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-30 19:20 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-14 10:16 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-14 09:25 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-15 21:43 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-29 22:57 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-30 11:38 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-08-30 08:28 -0700
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-30 18:54 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-30 23:42 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-09-07 18:30 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-07 22:48 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-09-26 18:00 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-26 20:36 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-27 08:03 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-08-29 02:29 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-29 01:22 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-08-29 04:30 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-29 05:50 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-29 07:28 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-29 14:30 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-29 16:19 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-29 21:29 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-08-29 18:44 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-29 21:36 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-30 19:17 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-14 09:59 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-15 21:47 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-16 07:27 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-30 02:53 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-08-30 14:33 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-08-30 23:36 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-14 10:06 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-14 09:34 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-14 19:10 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-14 22:25 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-15 09:06 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-16 17:28 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Bozo User <anthk@disroot.org> - 2024-09-30 20:04 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-30 22:08 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-15 15:51 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-09-15 21:55 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-15 21:32 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-09-15 15:54 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-16 17:30 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Sebastian <sebastian@here.com.invalid> - 2024-08-28 02:48 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 08:25 -0700
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-28 16:41 +0100
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-28 18:23 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-08-28 16:41 +0100
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-26 23:51 +0100
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-27 02:49 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-26 23:32 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-22 09:02 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-22 12:47 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-23 00:19 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-23 09:19 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-23 08:29 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-23 12:04 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-23 22:52 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-23 13:36 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-21 07:38 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-21 11:11 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-21 23:43 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-22 13:00 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-22 13:30 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-22 15:28 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-22 16:56 +0100
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-08-22 16:31 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-22 17:55 +0100
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-22 17:38 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-22 17:48 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-22 17:36 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-08-22 17:47 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-22 20:28 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-08-22 20:28 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-22 18:54 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-23 00:15 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-23 09:33 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Bozo User <anthk@disroot.org> - 2024-09-30 20:04 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-30 22:10 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-08-21 07:27 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-21 11:15 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-08-21 08:37 -0700
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-21 21:18 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2024-08-25 16:32 +0100
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-25 18:41 +0200
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-25 21:59 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-21 01:05 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-08-21 08:45 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-21 23:42 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-08-16 14:57 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-16 23:27 +0000
Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-17 01:01 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-13 21:54 +0000
on Perl (was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) Javier <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-04-14 20:41 +0000
Re: on Perl (was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-14 22:41 +0000
Re: on Perl (was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-04-15 12:43 +0000
Re: on Perl (was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-15 22:12 +0000
Re: on Perl (was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-15 15:29 -0700
Re: on Perl (was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-15 22:58 +0000
Re: on Perl (was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-04-16 10:14 +0200
Re: on Perl (was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-16 08:35 +0000
Re: on Perl (was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-04-16 11:35 +0200
Re: on Perl Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> - 2024-04-16 10:58 +0000
Re: on Perl David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-04-16 14:00 +0200
Re: on Perl Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-16 14:51 +0000
Re: on Perl candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-04-16 15:10 +0000
Re: on Perl Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-16 15:42 +0000
Re: on Perl Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-17 02:44 +0000
Re: on Perl Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2024-04-17 07:34 +0200
Re: on Perl John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-17 08:05 -0700
Re: on Perl David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-04-17 21:05 +0200
Re: on Perl John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-17 12:19 -0700
Re: on Perl David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-04-17 21:52 +0200
Re: on Perl John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-17 13:39 -0700
Re: on Perl Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-04-18 04:18 +0000
Re: on Perl David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-04-18 10:30 +0200
Re: on Perl Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-18 08:36 +0000
Re: on Perl David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-04-18 11:31 +0200
Re: on Perl Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-04-23 14:09 +0100
Back and forth (Was: on Perl) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-04-23 14:09 +0000
Re: on Perl David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-04-24 10:04 +0200
Re: on Perl John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 08:06 -0700
Re: On Stack-Based Languages (was Re: on Perl) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-18 07:55 +0000
Re: On Stack-Based Languages (was Re: on Perl) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-04-18 10:37 +0200
Re: On Stack-Based Languages (was Re: on Perl) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-18 08:44 +0000
Re: On Stack-Based Languages (was Re: on Perl) "James K. Lowden" <jklowden@speakeasy.net> - 2024-04-19 14:16 +0000
Re: On Stack-Based Languages (was Re: on Perl) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-19 21:57 +0000
Re: On Stack-Based Languages (was Re: on Perl) Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2024-04-18 15:00 +0300
Re: on Perl Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-16 14:49 +0000
Re: on Perl scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-04-16 15:01 +0000
Re: on Perl Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-16 15:26 +0000
Re: on Perl Chris Elvidge <chris@mshome.net> - 2024-04-16 16:42 +0100
Re: on Perl Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-16 15:43 +0000
Re: on Perl John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-16 08:49 -0700
Re: on Perl Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-16 15:51 +0000
Re: on Perl John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-16 08:59 -0700
Re: on Perl Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-16 16:13 +0000
Re: on Perl John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-16 09:18 -0700
Re: on Perl Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-17 08:22 +0000
Re: on Perl John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-17 07:59 -0700
Re: on Perl Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-17 16:15 +0000
Re: on Perl John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-17 09:55 -0700
Re: on Perl D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-04-17 23:05 +0200
Re: on Perl Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-18 07:35 +0000
Re: on Perl D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-04-18 11:28 +0200
Re: on Perl Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-18 15:37 +0000
Re: on Perl D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-04-18 20:59 +0200
Re: on Perl Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-19 08:57 +0000
Re: on Perl D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-04-19 22:40 +0200
Re: on Perl Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-20 08:58 +0000
Re: on Perl D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-04-20 12:40 +0200
Re: on Perl Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-20 10:52 +0000
Re: on Perl D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-04-20 21:00 +0200
Re: on Perl Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-18 07:33 +0000
Re: on Perl John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 10:16 -0700
Re: on Perl Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-19 08:57 +0000
Re: on Perl John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 16:08 -0700
Re: on Perl gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-04-20 01:48 +0000
Re: on Perl John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 08:36 -0700
Re: on Perl Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-20 08:59 +0000
Re: on Perl gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-04-16 18:11 +0000
Re: on Perl Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-17 08:23 +0000
Re: on Perl David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-04-17 11:36 +0200
Re: on Perl Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-04-17 10:21 +0000
Re: on Perl gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-04-16 18:09 +0000
Re: on Perl "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2024-04-16 12:05 -0400
Re: on Perl "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2024-04-16 12:25 -0400
Re: on Perl Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> - 2024-04-16 19:59 +0000
Re: on Perl Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-04-16 13:36 -0700
Re: on Perl candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-04-16 16:10 +0000
Re: on Perl Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-17 02:45 +0000
Re: on Perl David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-04-17 11:44 +0200
Re: on Perl David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-04-17 11:30 +0200
Re: on Perl candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-04-18 15:10 +0000
Re: on Perl David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-04-18 21:55 +0200
Re: on Perl Javier <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-04-16 20:47 +0000
Re: on Perl Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-17 03:14 +0000
Re: on Perl Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-04-17 18:04 +0100
Re: on Perl Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-17 23:23 +0000
Re: on Perl Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-04-17 16:59 -0700
Re: on Perl Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-18 01:33 +0000
Re: on Perl Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-04-18 18:09 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-29 13:47 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-29 20:36 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-29 20:59 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-03-30 00:14 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-03-30 00:45 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-29 17:03 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-03-30 01:06 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-29 23:51 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-29 17:08 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-30 01:12 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-29 18:15 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-03-30 01:21 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-03-30 01:30 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-30 01:15 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-29 17:01 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-03-30 01:49 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-29 18:00 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-31 20:47 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-03-30 12:44 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-30 14:28 -0700
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2024-03-31 22:06 +0200
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Andreas Kempe <kempe@lysator.liu.se> - 2024-04-14 17:11 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Bozo User <anthk@disroot.org> - 2024-09-30 20:04 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-30 20:59 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages usuario <anthk@disroot.org> - 2024-10-01 20:41 +0000
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-01 22:22 +0000
Page 20 of 49 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 … 49 Next page →
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-23 20:14 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Thunderbird Reply-button |
| Message-ID | <vht9jg$1r2ht$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16615 |
On 23.11.2024 15:24, James Kuyper wrote: > On 11/23/24 00:09, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >> On 23.11.2024 06:04, James Kuyper wrote: > ... >>> I seem to recall that I was advised that I could use an older version of >>> Thunderbird to edit the list of buttons that are visible, something that >>> cannot be done in the latest version. I'm afraid to go back to an older >>> version, because so many of the updates to most of the software I own >>> consists of security fixes. I don't want to go back to an older, less >>> secure version of TB. >> >> Understandable. - But you noticed that the "Smart Reply" thing was >> a feature of my newer Thunderbird version? - I'd think it should be >> there, or isn't it in your version? (What version are you running?) > > > 115.16.0esr That's newer than my "newer" one. - So they changed interface again?! Both TB versions I am using allowed some fix; none allowed it in an obvious, acceptable form, let alone did it right in the first place. > > I don't have a "More/Customize Toolbar" option, only "More/Customize", > [...] Since you seem to be annoying someone here it's probably best to search for a solution or workaround on the Net/Web for your TB version. For the other (annoyed) poster I would just suggest "self-defense" in the form of changing the email address to allow filtering. (I'm using for Internet anyway a special spam-catch email base address, and also added a "filter component" to that, but that's not supported by all email systems.) - I'm sure that's not what you prefer; you'll have to choose your path of least annoyance yourself. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-23 13:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhsmo5$33j$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #16607 |
In article <vhrjcr$1ijr4$1@dont-email.me>, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: >On 11/22/24 18:06, Dan Cross wrote: >... >> a) Please stop emailing me this stuff _and_ posting it here. I >> have asked you this in the past, and previously you'd said that >> it was because you switched news readers. That's fine, but that >> was a year ago or more. > >Actually, Thunderbird made the change to how the "Reply" button works >sometime around April 2021, and I'm still making the mistake of hitting >it when I should hit "Followup". At my age it's hard to change a habit >acquired over a couple of decades of posting to usenet; I'm doing my >best to change it, and still failing frequently. Three and a half years is a long time to learn how to use a tool competently. >I'm unlikely to deliberately send you e-mail, so you can easily avoid >the aggravation of dealing with my accidental e-mails by simply >kill-filing me. Please don't put the onus to deal with your mistakes on me. >> b) What you are referring to, from the section on Additive >> Operators (6.5.7 in n3220; 6.5.6 in C99) is in reference to >> pointer arithmetic; the statement that I was replying to was a >> general statement about pointers, independent of issues of >> pointer arithmetic. That is, it is not the case that, "each >> pointer in C points to an array". The above example, to which >> you replied, is a counterpoint to the general statement. > >I disagree. It is not independent, because there's nothing you can do >with pointer itself that has either it's value or it's validity >dependent upon whether that pointer points at a single object or the >first element of an array of length one. You can indirect it without doing arithmetic on it. This isn't a particularly interesting topic, however. The point was that the OP's statement was factually incorrect. - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 18:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sS30P.4663$YSkc.427@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #16574 |
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> writes:
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>>>>Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I think that writing bulky procedural stuff for something
>>>>>> like [0-9]+ can only be much worse, and that further abbreviations
>>>>>> like \d+ are the better direction to go if targeting a good interface.
>>>>>> YMMV.
>>>>>
>>>>>Assuming that p is a pointer to the current position in a string, e is a
>>>>>pointer to the end of it (ie, point just past the last byte) and -
>>>>>that's important - both are pointers to unsigned quantities, the 'bulky'
>>>>>C equivalent of [0-9]+ is
>>>>>
>>>>>while (p < e && *p - '0' < 10) ++p;
>>>>>
>>>>>That's not too bad. And it's really a hell lot faster than a
>>>>>general-purpose automaton programmed to recognize the same pattern
>>>>>(which might not matter most of the time, but sometimes, it does).
>>>>
>>>> It's also not exactly right. `[0-9]+` would match one or more
>>>> characters; this possibly matches 0 (ie, if `p` pointed to
>>>> something that wasn't a digit).
>>>
>>>The regex won't match any digits if there aren't any. In this case, the
>>>match will fail. I didn't include the code for handling that because it
>>>seemed pretty pointless for the example.
>>
>> That's rather the point though, isn't it? The program snippet
>> (modulo the promotion to signed int via the "usual arithmetic
>> conversions" before the subtraction and comparison giving you
>> unexpected values; nothing to do with whether `char` is signed
>> or not) is a snippet that advances a pointer while it points to
>> a digit, starting at the current pointer position; that is, it
>> just increments a pointer over a run of digits.
>
>That's the core part of matching someting equivalent to the regex [0-9]+
>and the only part of it is which is at least remotely interesting.
>
>> But that's not the same as a regex matcher, which has a semantic
>> notion of success or failure. I could run your snippet against
>> a string such as, say, "ZZZZZZ" and it would "succeed" just as
>> it would against an empty string or a string of one or more
>> digits.
>
>Why do you believe that p being equivalent to the starting position
>would be considered a "successful match", considering that this
>obviously doesn't make any sense?
>
>[...]
>
>> By the way, something that _would_ match `^[0-9]+$` might be:
>
>[too much code]
>
>Something which would match [0-9]+ in its first argument (if any) would
>be:
>
>#include "string.h"
>#include "stdlib.h"
>
>int main(int argc, char **argv)
>{
> char *p;
> unsigned c;
>
> p = argv[1];
> if (!p) exit(1);
> while (c = *p, c && c - '0' > 10) ++p;
> if (!c) exit(1);
> return 0;
>}
>
>but that's 14 lines of text, 13 of which have absolutely no relation to
>the problem of recognizing a digit.
Personally, I'd use:
$ cat /tmp/a.c
#include <stdint.h>
#include <string.h>
int
main(int argc, const char **argv)
{
char *cp;
uint64_t value;
if (argc < 2) return 1;
value = strtoull(argv[1], &cp, 10);
if ((cp == argv[1])
|| (*cp != '\0')) {
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
$ cc -o /tmp/a /tmp/a.c
$ /tmp/a 13254
$ echo $?
0
$ /tmp/a 23v23
$ echo $?
1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 18:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <VZ30P.4664$YSkc.1894@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #16583 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> writes:
>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>>>>>Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally I think that writing bulky procedural stuff for something
>>>>>>> like [0-9]+ can only be much worse, and that further abbreviations
>>>>>>> like \d+ are the better direction to go if targeting a good interface.
>>>>>>> YMMV.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Assuming that p is a pointer to the current position in a string, e is a
>>>>>>pointer to the end of it (ie, point just past the last byte) and -
>>>>>>that's important - both are pointers to unsigned quantities, the 'bulky'
>>>>>>C equivalent of [0-9]+ is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>while (p < e && *p - '0' < 10) ++p;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's not too bad. And it's really a hell lot faster than a
>>>>>>general-purpose automaton programmed to recognize the same pattern
>>>>>>(which might not matter most of the time, but sometimes, it does).
>>>>>
>>>>> It's also not exactly right. `[0-9]+` would match one or more
>>>>> characters; this possibly matches 0 (ie, if `p` pointed to
>>>>> something that wasn't a digit).
>>>>
>>>>The regex won't match any digits if there aren't any. In this case, the
>>>>match will fail. I didn't include the code for handling that because it
>>>>seemed pretty pointless for the example.
>>>
>>> That's rather the point though, isn't it? The program snippet
>>> (modulo the promotion to signed int via the "usual arithmetic
>>> conversions" before the subtraction and comparison giving you
>>> unexpected values; nothing to do with whether `char` is signed
>>> or not) is a snippet that advances a pointer while it points to
>>> a digit, starting at the current pointer position; that is, it
>>> just increments a pointer over a run of digits.
>>
>>That's the core part of matching someting equivalent to the regex [0-9]+
>>and the only part of it is which is at least remotely interesting.
>>
>>> But that's not the same as a regex matcher, which has a semantic
>>> notion of success or failure. I could run your snippet against
>>> a string such as, say, "ZZZZZZ" and it would "succeed" just as
>>> it would against an empty string or a string of one or more
>>> digits.
>>
>>Why do you believe that p being equivalent to the starting position
>>would be considered a "successful match", considering that this
>>obviously doesn't make any sense?
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> By the way, something that _would_ match `^[0-9]+$` might be:
>>
>>[too much code]
>>
>>Something which would match [0-9]+ in its first argument (if any) would
>>be:
>>
>>#include "string.h"
>>#include "stdlib.h"
>>
>>int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>{
>> char *p;
>> unsigned c;
>>
>> p = argv[1];
>> if (!p) exit(1);
>> while (c = *p, c && c - '0' > 10) ++p;
>> if (!c) exit(1);
>> return 0;
>>}
>>
>>but that's 14 lines of text, 13 of which have absolutely no relation to
>>the problem of recognizing a digit.
>
>Personally, I'd use:
Albeit this is limited to strings of digits that sum to less than
ULONG_MAX...
>
>$ cat /tmp/a.c
>#include <stdint.h>
>#include <string.h>
>
>int
>main(int argc, const char **argv)
>{
> char *cp;
> uint64_t value;
>
> if (argc < 2) return 1;
>
> value = strtoull(argv[1], &cp, 10);
> if ((cp == argv[1])
> || (*cp != '\0')) {
> return 1;
> }
> return 0;
>}
>$ cc -o /tmp/a /tmp/a.c
>$ /tmp/a 13254
>$ echo $?
>0
>$ /tmp/a 23v23
>$ echo $?
>1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 18:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhqik7$nn0$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #16586 |
In article <VZ30P.4664$YSkc.1894@fx40.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> writes:
>>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>>>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>>>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personally I think that writing bulky procedural stuff for something
>>>>>>>> like [0-9]+ can only be much worse, and that further abbreviations
>>>>>>>> like \d+ are the better direction to go if targeting a good interface.
>>>>>>>> YMMV.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Assuming that p is a pointer to the current position in a string, e is a
>>>>>>>pointer to the end of it (ie, point just past the last byte) and -
>>>>>>>that's important - both are pointers to unsigned quantities, the 'bulky'
>>>>>>>C equivalent of [0-9]+ is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>while (p < e && *p - '0' < 10) ++p;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's not too bad. And it's really a hell lot faster than a
>>>>>>>general-purpose automaton programmed to recognize the same pattern
>>>>>>>(which might not matter most of the time, but sometimes, it does).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's also not exactly right. `[0-9]+` would match one or more
>>>>>> characters; this possibly matches 0 (ie, if `p` pointed to
>>>>>> something that wasn't a digit).
>>>>>
>>>>>The regex won't match any digits if there aren't any. In this case, the
>>>>>match will fail. I didn't include the code for handling that because it
>>>>>seemed pretty pointless for the example.
>>>>
>>>> That's rather the point though, isn't it? The program snippet
>>>> (modulo the promotion to signed int via the "usual arithmetic
>>>> conversions" before the subtraction and comparison giving you
>>>> unexpected values; nothing to do with whether `char` is signed
>>>> or not) is a snippet that advances a pointer while it points to
>>>> a digit, starting at the current pointer position; that is, it
>>>> just increments a pointer over a run of digits.
>>>
>>>That's the core part of matching someting equivalent to the regex [0-9]+
>>>and the only part of it is which is at least remotely interesting.
>>>
>>>> But that's not the same as a regex matcher, which has a semantic
>>>> notion of success or failure. I could run your snippet against
>>>> a string such as, say, "ZZZZZZ" and it would "succeed" just as
>>>> it would against an empty string or a string of one or more
>>>> digits.
>>>
>>>Why do you believe that p being equivalent to the starting position
>>>would be considered a "successful match", considering that this
>>>obviously doesn't make any sense?
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>> By the way, something that _would_ match `^[0-9]+$` might be:
>>>
>>>[too much code]
>>>
>>>Something which would match [0-9]+ in its first argument (if any) would
>>>be:
>>>
>>>#include "string.h"
>>>#include "stdlib.h"
>>>
>>>int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>>{
>>> char *p;
>>> unsigned c;
>>>
>>> p = argv[1];
>>> if (!p) exit(1);
>>> while (c = *p, c && c - '0' > 10) ++p;
>>> if (!c) exit(1);
>>> return 0;
>>>}
>>>
>>>but that's 14 lines of text, 13 of which have absolutely no relation to
>>>the problem of recognizing a digit.
>>
>>Personally, I'd use:
>
>Albeit this is limited to strings of digits that sum to less than
>ULONG_MAX...
It's not quite equivalent to his program, which just exit's with
success if it sees any input string with a digit in it; your's
is closer to what I wrote, which matches `^[0-9]+$`. His is not
an interesting program and certainly not a recognizable
equivalent a regular expression matcher in any reasonable sense,
but I think the cognitive dissonance is too strong to get that
across.
- Dan C.
>>$ cat /tmp/a.c
>>#include <stdint.h>
>>#include <string.h>
>>
>>int
>>main(int argc, const char **argv)
>>{
>> char *cp;
>> uint64_t value;
>>
>> if (argc < 2) return 1;
>>
>> value = strtoull(argv[1], &cp, 10);
>> if ((cp == argv[1])
>> || (*cp != '\0')) {
>> return 1;
>> }
>> return 0;
>>}
>>$ cc -o /tmp/a /tmp/a.c
>>$ /tmp/a 13254
>>$ echo $?
>>0
>>$ /tmp/a 23v23
>>$ echo $?
>>1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 18:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87cyinrt5s.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> |
| In reply to | #16583 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> writes:
[...]
>>Something which would match [0-9]+ in its first argument (if any) would
>>be:
>>
>>#include "string.h"
>>#include "stdlib.h"
>>
>>int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>{
>> char *p;
>> unsigned c;
>>
>> p = argv[1];
>> if (!p) exit(1);
>> while (c = *p, c && c - '0' > 10) ++p;
>> if (!c) exit(1);
>> return 0;
>>}
>>
>>but that's 14 lines of text, 13 of which have absolutely no relation to
>>the problem of recognizing a digit.
>
> Personally, I'd use:
>
> $ cat /tmp/a.c
> #include <stdint.h>
> #include <string.h>
>
> int
> main(int argc, const char **argv)
> {
> char *cp;
> uint64_t value;
>
> if (argc < 2) return 1;
>
> value = strtoull(argv[1], &cp, 10);
> if ((cp == argv[1])
> || (*cp != '\0')) {
> return 1;
> }
> return 0;
> }
This will accept a string of digits whose numerical value is <=
ULLONG_MAX, ie, it's basically ^[0-9]+$ with unobvious length and
content limits.
return !strstr(argv[1], "0123456789");
would be a better approximation, just a much more complicated algorithm
than necessary. Even in strictly conforming ISO-C "digitness" of a
character can be determined by a simple calculation instead of some kind
of search loop.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 19:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhql7r$7dv$2@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #16589 |
In article <87cyinrt5s.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>,
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>>Something which would match [0-9]+ in its first argument (if any) would
>>>be:
>>>
>>>#include "string.h"
>>>#include "stdlib.h"
>>>
>>>int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>>{
>>> char *p;
>>> unsigned c;
>>>
>>> p = argv[1];
>>> if (!p) exit(1);
>>> while (c = *p, c && c - '0' > 10) ++p;
>>> if (!c) exit(1);
>>> return 0;
>>>}
>>>
>>>but that's 14 lines of text, 13 of which have absolutely no relation to
>>>the problem of recognizing a digit.
>>
>> Personally, I'd use:
>>
>> $ cat /tmp/a.c
>> #include <stdint.h>
>> #include <string.h>
>>
>> int
>> main(int argc, const char **argv)
>> {
>> char *cp;
>> uint64_t value;
>>
>> if (argc < 2) return 1;
>>
>> value = strtoull(argv[1], &cp, 10);
>> if ((cp == argv[1])
>> || (*cp != '\0')) {
>> return 1;
>> }
>> return 0;
>> }
>
>This will accept a string of digits whose numerical value is <=
>ULLONG_MAX, ie, it's basically ^[0-9]+$ with unobvious length and
>content limits.
He acknowledged this already.
>return !strstr(argv[1], "0123456789");
>
>would be a better approximation,
No it wouldn't. That's not even close. `strstr` looks for an
instance of its second argument in its first, not an instance of
any character in it's second argument in its first. Perhaps you
meant something with `strspn` or similar. E.g.,
const char *p = argv[1] + strspn(argv[1], "0123456789");
return *p != '\0';
>just a much more complicated algorithm
>than necessary. Even in strictly conforming ISO-C "digitness" of a
>character can be determined by a simple calculation instead of some kind
>of search loop.
Yes, one can do that, but why bother?
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 19:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <874j3zrrxs.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> |
| In reply to | #16591 |
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
> In article <87cyinrt5s.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>,
> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> writes:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>Something which would match [0-9]+ in its first argument (if any) would
>>>>be:
>>>>
>>>>#include "string.h"
>>>>#include "stdlib.h"
>>>>
>>>>int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>>>{
>>>> char *p;
>>>> unsigned c;
>>>>
>>>> p = argv[1];
>>>> if (!p) exit(1);
>>>> while (c = *p, c && c - '0' > 10) ++p;
>>>> if (!c) exit(1);
>>>> return 0;
>>>>}
>>>>
>>>>but that's 14 lines of text, 13 of which have absolutely no relation to
>>>>the problem of recognizing a digit.
>>>
>>> Personally, I'd use:
>>>
>>> $ cat /tmp/a.c
>>> #include <stdint.h>
>>> #include <string.h>
>>>
>>> int
>>> main(int argc, const char **argv)
>>> {
>>> char *cp;
>>> uint64_t value;
>>>
>>> if (argc < 2) return 1;
>>>
>>> value = strtoull(argv[1], &cp, 10);
>>> if ((cp == argv[1])
>>> || (*cp != '\0')) {
>>> return 1;
>>> }
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>
>>This will accept a string of digits whose numerical value is <=
>>ULLONG_MAX, ie, it's basically ^[0-9]+$ with unobvious length and
>>content limits.
>
> He acknowledged this already.
>
>>return !strstr(argv[1], "0123456789");
>>
>>would be a better approximation,
>
> No it wouldn't. That's not even close. `strstr` looks for an
> instance of its second argument in its first, not an instance of
> any character in it's second argument in its first. Perhaps you
> meant something with `strspn` or similar. E.g.,
>
> const char *p = argv[1] + strspn(argv[1], "0123456789");
> return *p != '\0';
My bad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 19:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhqnbm$7dc$2@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #16594 |
In article <874j3zrrxs.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>,
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>> In article <87cyinrt5s.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>,
>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> writes:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>>Something which would match [0-9]+ in its first argument (if any) would
>>>>>be:
>>>>>
>>>>>#include "string.h"
>>>>>#include "stdlib.h"
>>>>>
>>>>>int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>>>>{
>>>>> char *p;
>>>>> unsigned c;
>>>>>
>>>>> p = argv[1];
>>>>> if (!p) exit(1);
>>>>> while (c = *p, c && c - '0' > 10) ++p;
>>>>> if (!c) exit(1);
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>}
>>>>>
>>>>>but that's 14 lines of text, 13 of which have absolutely no relation to
>>>>>the problem of recognizing a digit.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I'd use:
>>>>
>>>> $ cat /tmp/a.c
>>>> #include <stdint.h>
>>>> #include <string.h>
>>>>
>>>> int
>>>> main(int argc, const char **argv)
>>>> {
>>>> char *cp;
>>>> uint64_t value;
>>>>
>>>> if (argc < 2) return 1;
>>>>
>>>> value = strtoull(argv[1], &cp, 10);
>>>> if ((cp == argv[1])
>>>> || (*cp != '\0')) {
>>>> return 1;
>>>> }
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>
>>>This will accept a string of digits whose numerical value is <=
>>>ULLONG_MAX, ie, it's basically ^[0-9]+$ with unobvious length and
>>>content limits.
>>
>> He acknowledged this already.
>>
>>>return !strstr(argv[1], "0123456789");
>>>
>>>would be a better approximation,
>>
>> No it wouldn't. That's not even close. `strstr` looks for an
>> instance of its second argument in its first, not an instance of
>> any character in it's second argument in its first. Perhaps you
>> meant something with `strspn` or similar. E.g.,
>>
>> const char *p = argv[1] + strspn(argv[1], "0123456789");
>> return *p != '\0';
>
>My bad.
You've made a lot of "bad"s in this thread, and been rude about
it to boot, crying foul when someone's pointed out ways that
your code is deficient; claiming offense at what you perceive as
"snark" while dishing the same out in kind, making basic errors
that show you haven't done the barest minimum of testing, and
making statements that show you have, at best, a limited grasp
on the language you're choosing to use.
I'm done being polite. My conclusion is that perhaps you are
not as up on these things as you seem to think that you are.
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mas@a4.home |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-21 15:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnvjulf2.rfrc.mas@a4.home> |
| In reply to | #16544 |
On 2024-11-20, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> Assuming that p is a pointer to the current position in a string, e is a
> pointer to the end of it (ie, point just past the last byte) and -
> that's important - both are pointers to unsigned quantities, the 'bulky'
> C equivalent of [0-9]+ is
>
> while (p < e && *p - '0' < 10) ++p;
>
> That's not too bad. And it's really a hell lot faster than a
> general-purpose automaton programmed to recognize the same pattern
> (which might not matter most of the time, but sometimes, it does).
int
main(int argc, char **argv) {
unsigned char *p, *e;
unsigned char mystr[] = "12#45XY ";
p = mystr;
e = mystr + sizeof(mystr);
while (p < e && *p - '0' < 10) ++p;
size_t xlen = p-mystr;
printf("digits: '%.*s'\n", (int) xlen, mystr);
printf("mystr %p p %p e %p\n", mystr, p, e);
printf("xlen %zd\n", xlen);
return 0;
}
./a.out
digits: '12#45'
mystr 0x7ffc92ac55ff p 0x7ffc92ac5604 e 0x7ffc92ac5608
xlen 5
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-21 16:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <QVI%O.179460$Oi5e.162642@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #16555 |
mas@a4.home writes:
>On 2024-11-20, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> Assuming that p is a pointer to the current position in a string, e is a
>> pointer to the end of it (ie, point just past the last byte) and -
>> that's important - both are pointers to unsigned quantities, the 'bulky'
>> C equivalent of [0-9]+ is
>>
>> while (p < e && *p - '0' < 10) ++p;
>>
>> That's not too bad. And it's really a hell lot faster than a
>> general-purpose automaton programmed to recognize the same pattern
>> (which might not matter most of the time, but sometimes, it does).
>
>int
>main(int argc, char **argv) {
>unsigned char *p, *e;
>unsigned char mystr[] = "12#45XY ";
>
> p = mystr;
> e = mystr + sizeof(mystr);
> while (p < e && *p - '0' < 10) ++p;
>
> size_t xlen = p-mystr;
> printf("digits: '%.*s'\n", (int) xlen, mystr);
> printf("mystr %p p %p e %p\n", mystr, p, e);
> printf("xlen %zd\n", xlen);
>
> return 0;
>}
>
> ./a.out
>digits: '12#45'
>mystr 0x7ffc92ac55ff p 0x7ffc92ac5604 e 0x7ffc92ac5608
>xlen 5
>
Indeed. Rainer's while loop should be using isdigit(*p).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-21 17:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87jzcwqysb.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> |
| In reply to | #16559 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> mas@a4.home writes:
>>On 2024-11-20, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Assuming that p is a pointer to the current position in a string, e is a
>>> pointer to the end of it (ie, point just past the last byte) and -
>>> that's important - both are pointers to unsigned quantities, the 'bulky'
>>> C equivalent of [0-9]+ is
>>>
>>> while (p < e && *p - '0' < 10) ++p;
>>>
>>> That's not too bad. And it's really a hell lot faster than a
>>> general-purpose automaton programmed to recognize the same pattern
>>> (which might not matter most of the time, but sometimes, it does).
>>
>>int
>>main(int argc, char **argv) {
>>unsigned char *p, *e;
>>unsigned char mystr[] = "12#45XY ";
>>
>> p = mystr;
>> e = mystr + sizeof(mystr);
>> while (p < e && *p - '0' < 10) ++p;
>>
>> size_t xlen = p-mystr;
>> printf("digits: '%.*s'\n", (int) xlen, mystr);
>> printf("mystr %p p %p e %p\n", mystr, p, e);
>> printf("xlen %zd\n", xlen);
>>
>> return 0;
>>}
>>
>> ./a.out
>>digits: '12#45'
>>mystr 0x7ffc92ac55ff p 0x7ffc92ac5604 e 0x7ffc92ac5608
>>xlen 5
>>
>
> Indeed. Rainer's while loop should be using isdigit(*p).
I'm even using
c &= ~0x20;
if (c - 'A' < 6) return c - 'A' + 10;
for detecting hex digits (type of c is unsigned). JSON demands UTF8
which implies demanding ASCII (which means that the code point of a
lowercase letter is that of the corresponding uppercase letter but with
the sixth bit additionally set).
Constructs like this are great insurance policy against people inventing
spurious character encodings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-21 17:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <673f737e$0$28074$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #16559 |
Scott Lurndal, dans le message <QVI%O.179460$Oi5e.162642@fx15.iad>, a écrit : > Indeed. Rainer's while loop should be using isdigit(*p). No it should, that would be a mistake.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-21 17:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87o728qzbc.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> |
| In reply to | #16555 |
mas@a4.home writes:
> On 2024-11-20, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> Assuming that p is a pointer to the current position in a string, e is a
>> pointer to the end of it (ie, point just past the last byte) and -
>> that's important - both are pointers to unsigned quantities, the 'bulky'
>> C equivalent of [0-9]+ is
>>
>> while (p < e && *p - '0' < 10) ++p;
>>
>> That's not too bad. And it's really a hell lot faster than a
>> general-purpose automaton programmed to recognize the same pattern
>> (which might not matter most of the time, but sometimes, it does).
>
> int
> main(int argc, char **argv) {
> unsigned char *p, *e;
> unsigned char mystr[] = "12#45XY ";
>
> p = mystr;
> e = mystr + sizeof(mystr);
> while (p < e && *p - '0' < 10) ++p;
The code I'm actually using is
while (p < e && (unsigned)*p - '0' < 10)
++p;
I just omitted that when posting this beause I mistakenly assumed that
it probably wasn't needed, ;-). You could have pointed this out instead
of trying to dress it up as some sort of mystery problem¹. Especially as
I did mention that using unsigned arithmetic was necessary (should
really be self-evident).
I should really have replied with
[rw@doppelsaurus]/tmp#gcc a.c
a.c: In function 'main':
a.c:12:5: error: unknown type name 'size_t'
12 | size_t xlen = p-mystr;
| ^~~~~~
a.c:1:1: note: 'size_t' is defined in header '<stddef.h>'; did you forget to '#include <stddef.h>'?
+++ |+#include <stddef.h>
1 | int
a.c:13:5: warning: implicit declaration of function 'printf' [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
13 | printf("digits: '%.*s'\n", (int) xlen, mystr);
| ^~~~~~
a.c:13:5: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function 'printf'
a.c:1:1: note: include '<stdio.h>' or provide a declaration of 'printf'
+++ |+#include <stdio.h>
1 | int
as code which cannot even be compiled as no runtime behaviour.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 14:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhq3j8$2jo$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #16561 |
In article <87o728qzbc.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>,
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>mas@a4.home writes:
>> On 2024-11-20, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Assuming that p is a pointer to the current position in a string, e is a
>>> pointer to the end of it (ie, point just past the last byte) and -
>>> that's important - both are pointers to unsigned quantities, the 'bulky'
>>> C equivalent of [0-9]+ is
>>>
>>> while (p < e && *p - '0' < 10) ++p;
>>>
>>> That's not too bad. And it's really a hell lot faster than a
>>> general-purpose automaton programmed to recognize the same pattern
>>> (which might not matter most of the time, but sometimes, it does).
>>
>> int
>> main(int argc, char **argv) {
>> unsigned char *p, *e;
>> unsigned char mystr[] = "12#45XY ";
>>
>> p = mystr;
>> e = mystr + sizeof(mystr);
>> while (p < e && *p - '0' < 10) ++p;
>
>The code I'm actually using is
>
> while (p < e && (unsigned)*p - '0' < 10)
> ++p;
>
>I just omitted that when posting this beause I mistakenly assumed that
>it probably wasn't needed, ;-). You could have pointed this out instead
>of trying to dress it up as some sort of mystery problem¹. Especially as
>I did mention that using unsigned arithmetic was necessary (should
>really be self-evident).
Well, no, not exactly. You said that it was important that the
pointers point to unsigned quantities, but that wasn't the
issue. The issue is that both operands of the `-` are promoted
to _signed_ int before the subtraction (sec 6.3.1.8 of n220),
and so the comparison is done against signed quantities. Your
cast fixes this by forcing promotion of '0' and 10 to unsigned
int before either operation.
I do agree that the presentation was overly terse and came off
poorly.
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 15:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87cyinthjk.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> |
| In reply to | #16572 |
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
> In article <87o728qzbc.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>,
> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>mas@a4.home writes:
>>> On 2024-11-20, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Assuming that p is a pointer to the current position in a string, e is a
>>>> pointer to the end of it (ie, point just past the last byte) and -
>>>> that's important - both are pointers to unsigned quantities, the 'bulky'
>>>> C equivalent of [0-9]+ is
>>>>
>>>> while (p < e && *p - '0' < 10) ++p;
>>>>
>>>> That's not too bad. And it's really a hell lot faster than a
>>>> general-purpose automaton programmed to recognize the same pattern
>>>> (which might not matter most of the time, but sometimes, it does).
>>>
>>> int
>>> main(int argc, char **argv) {
>>> unsigned char *p, *e;
>>> unsigned char mystr[] = "12#45XY ";
>>>
>>> p = mystr;
>>> e = mystr + sizeof(mystr);
>>> while (p < e && *p - '0' < 10) ++p;
>>
>>The code I'm actually using is
>>
>> while (p < e && (unsigned)*p - '0' < 10)
>> ++p;
>>
>>I just omitted that when posting this beause I mistakenly assumed that
>>it probably wasn't needed, ;-). You could have pointed this out instead
>>of trying to dress it up as some sort of mystery problem¹. Especially as
>>I did mention that using unsigned arithmetic was necessary (should
>>really be self-evident).
>
> Well, no, not exactly. You said that it was important that the
> pointers point to unsigned quantities, but that wasn't the
> issue.
The issue here is that I mistakenly assumed the (unsigned) in the code
was a left-over from before the time when I had changed to pointers to
unsigned char to fix a different issue. As C tries really hard to force
signed arithmetic onto people despite this basically never makes any
sense, the type of '0' is int *p gets promoted to int and hence, the
result of the subtraction will also be an int and the '< 10' condition
will be true for every codepoint numerically less than '9' which
obviously won't work as intended.
That's a mistake I made which would have warranted being pointed out and
possibly explained instead of posting some broken code together with
some output the broken code certainly never generated due it being
broken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 21:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhqs7k$btv$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #16573 |
In article <87cyinthjk.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>,
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>> In article <87o728qzbc.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>,
>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>>mas@a4.home writes:
>>>> On 2024-11-20, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> Assuming that p is a pointer to the current position in a string, e is a
>>>>> pointer to the end of it (ie, point just past the last byte) and -
>>>>> that's important - both are pointers to unsigned quantities, the 'bulky'
>>>>> C equivalent of [0-9]+ is
>>>>>
>>>>> while (p < e && *p - '0' < 10) ++p;
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not too bad. And it's really a hell lot faster than a
>>>>> general-purpose automaton programmed to recognize the same pattern
>>>>> (which might not matter most of the time, but sometimes, it does).
>>>>
>>>> int
>>>> main(int argc, char **argv) {
>>>> unsigned char *p, *e;
>>>> unsigned char mystr[] = "12#45XY ";
>>>>
>>>> p = mystr;
>>>> e = mystr + sizeof(mystr);
>>>> while (p < e && *p - '0' < 10) ++p;
>>>
>>>The code I'm actually using is
>>>
>>> while (p < e && (unsigned)*p - '0' < 10)
>>> ++p;
>>>
>>>I just omitted that when posting this beause I mistakenly assumed that
>>>it probably wasn't needed, ;-). You could have pointed this out instead
>>>of trying to dress it up as some sort of mystery problem¹. Especially as
>>>I did mention that using unsigned arithmetic was necessary (should
>>>really be self-evident).
>>
>> Well, no, not exactly. You said that it was important that the
>> pointers point to unsigned quantities, but that wasn't the
>> issue.
>
>The issue here is that I mistakenly assumed the (unsigned) in the code
>was a left-over from before the time when I had changed to pointers to
>unsigned char to fix a different issue.
That you "changed to pointers to unsigned char" is completely
irrelevant. That's not how C works: C will promote those
`unsigned char` values to `signed int` before it does the
subtraction. It does this because `unsigned char` has _rank_
lower than _int_ and the entire range of values is expressible
in a signed int. These are called, "the usual arithmetic
conversions."
I pointed you to the section of the standard that explains this.
>As C tries really hard to force
>signed arithmetic onto people despite this basically never makes any
>sense,
It actually makes a lot of sense in a lot of contexts, and is
usually what people actually want.
You've shown that you, personally, don't have a great command of
the language, so perhaps you shouldn't opine quite so
forcefully.
>the type of '0' is int *p gets promoted to int and hence, the
>result of the subtraction will also be an int and the '< 10' condition
>will be true for every codepoint numerically less than '9' which
>obviously won't work as intended.
Yes, that's how it works.
>That's a mistake I made which would have warranted being pointed out and
>possibly explained instead of posting some broken code together with
>some output the broken code certainly never generated due it being
>broken.
Perhaps if you stopped being so unbearably smug and pretentious
in your judgements people would give you that grace. As it is,
you come across as thin-skinned and terribly insecure, and your
code shows a lack of competence.
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 22:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87cyimapjr.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> |
| In reply to | #16599 |
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes: [...] >>That's a mistake I made which would have warranted being pointed out and >>possibly explained instead of posting some broken code together with >>some output the broken code certainly never generated due it being >>broken. > > Perhaps if you stopped being so unbearably smug and pretentious > in your judgements people would give you that grace. As it is, > you come across as thin-skinned and terribly insecure, and your > code shows a lack of competence. I suggest you print this and pin to to a place you frequently look at. This may eventually lead you to a much more realistic assessment of yourself than you presently seem to have.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 23:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhr30h$qid$2@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #16600 |
In article <87cyimapjr.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote: >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes: > >[...] > >>>That's a mistake I made which would have warranted being pointed out and >>>possibly explained instead of posting some broken code together with >>>some output the broken code certainly never generated due it being >>>broken. >> >> Perhaps if you stopped being so unbearably smug and pretentious >> in your judgements people would give you that grace. As it is, >> you come across as thin-skinned and terribly insecure, and your >> code shows a lack of competence. > >I suggest you print this and pin to to a place you frequently look >at. This may eventually lead you to a much more realistic assessment of >yourself than you presently seem to have. *shrug* If you don't want to be criticized, don't be wrong so often. Not my problem if you don't program well. - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 17:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <e47664d3-7f9b-4e67-aa73-b72c6cc0687a@alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #16599 |
On 11/22/24 16:14, Dan Cross wrote: ... > irrelevant. That's not how C works: C will promote those > `unsigned char` values to `signed int` before it does the > subtraction. It does this because `unsigned char` has _rank_ > lower than _int_ ... True. > ... and the entire range of values is expressible > in a signed int. Not necessarily. An implementation is allowed to have UCHAR_MAX > INT_MAX, in which case unsigned char promotes to unsigned int rather than int. I'm aware of systems where UCHAR_MAX > LONG_MAX was true: char, short, int, and long were all 32 bits. > ... These are called, "the usual arithmetic > conversions." Actually, what you're talking about are the integer promotions. The first step of the usual arithmetic conversions is to apply the integer promotions to each operand, but then a few other things happen as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 20 of 49 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 … 49 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.unix.programmer
csiph-web