Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.unix.shell > #24808 > 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 736 — 47 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.unix.shell
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 Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-03-29 10:37 +0100
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 Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-03-30 00:22 +0100
Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-30 05:54 +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: Too much? (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) Mister Johnson <root@example.net> - 2024-04-04 21:15 +0000
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) Mister Johnson <root@example.net> - 2024-04-10 10:37 +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 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 Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-03-29 12:36 +0100
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 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 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 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 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 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 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-17 06:44 +0000
Re: on Perl David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-04-17 11:27 +0200
Re: on Perl John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-04-17 07:55 -0700
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 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 "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 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 19 of 37 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 37 Next page →
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 18:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhqik7$nn0$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #25948 |
In article <VZ30P.4664$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 | #25945 |
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 | #25951 |
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 | #25953 |
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 | #25956 |
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 | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 12:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vhpp2q$15aen$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25913 |
On 20.11.2024 18:50, Rainer Weikusat 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). Okay, I see where you're coming from (and especially in that simple case). Personally (and YMMV), even here in this simple case I think that using pointers is not better but worse - and anyway isn't [in this form] available in most languages; in other cases (and languages) such constructs get yet more clumsy, and for my not very complex example - /[0-9]+(ABC)?x*foo/ - even a "catastrophe" concerning readability, error-proneness, and maintainability. If that is what the other poster meant I'm fine with your answer; there's no need to even consider abandoning regular expressions in favor of explicitly codified parsing. Janis PS: And thanks for answering on behalf of the other poster whom I see in his followups just continuing his very personal style.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 11:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87wmgvzdlh.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> |
| In reply to | #25931 |
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: > On 20.11.2024 18:50, Rainer Weikusat 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). > > Okay, I see where you're coming from (and especially in that simple > case). > > Personally (and YMMV), even here in this simple case I think that > using pointers is not better but worse - and anyway isn't [in this > form] available in most languages; That's a question of using the proper tool for the job. In C, that's pointer and pointer arithmetic because it's the simplest way to express something like this. > in other cases (and languages) > such constructs get yet more clumsy, and for my not very complex > example - /[0-9]+(ABC)?x*foo/ - even a "catastrophe" concerning > readability, error-proneness, and maintainability. Procedural code for matching strings constructed in this way is certainly much simpler¹ than the equally procedural code for a programmable automaton capable of interpreting regexes. Your statement is basically "If we assume that the code interpreting regexes doesn't exist, regexes need much less code than something equivalent which does exist." Without this assumption, the picture becomes a different one altogether. ¹ This doesn't even need a real state machine, just four subroutines executed in succession (and two of these can share an implementation as "matching ABC" and "matching foo" are both cases of matching a constant string. > If that is what the other poster meant I'm fine with your answer; > there's no need to even consider abandoning regular expressions > in favor of explicitly codified parsing. This depends on the specific problem and the constraints applicable to a solution. For the common case, regexes, if easily available, are an obvious good solution. But not all cases are common.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 20:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vhqma5$1adbr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25934 |
On 22.11.2024 12:56, Rainer Weikusat wrote: > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: >> On 20.11.2024 18:50, Rainer Weikusat wrote: >>>[...] >>> 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). >> >> Okay, I see where you're coming from (and especially in that simple >> case). >> >> Personally (and YMMV), even here in this simple case I think that >> using pointers is not better but worse - and anyway isn't [in this >> form] available in most languages; > > That's a question of using the proper tool for the job. In C, that's > pointer and pointer arithmetic because it's the simplest way to express > something like this. Yes, in "C" you'd use that primitive (error-prone) pointer feature. That's what I said. And that in other languages it's less terse than in "C" but equally error-prone if you have to create all the parsing code yourself (without an existing engine and in a non-standard way). And if you extend the expression to parse it's IME much simpler done in Regex than adjusting the algorithm of the ad hoc procedural code. > >> in other cases (and languages) >> such constructs get yet more clumsy, and for my not very complex >> example - /[0-9]+(ABC)?x*foo/ - even a "catastrophe" concerning >> readability, error-proneness, and maintainability. > > Procedural code for matching strings constructed in this way is > certainly much simpler¹ than the equally procedural code for a > programmable automaton capable of interpreting regexes. The point is that Regexps and the equivalence to FSA (with guaranteed runtime complexity) is an [efficient] abstraction with a formalized syntax; that are huge advantages compared to ad hoc parsing code in C (or in any other language). > Your statement > is basically "If we assume that the code interpreting regexes doesn't > exist, regexes need much less code than something equivalent which does > exist." Without this assumption, the picture becomes a different one > altogether. I don't speak of assumptions. I speak about the fact that there's a well-understood model with existing [parsing-]implementations already available to handle a huge class of algorithms in a standardized way with a guaranteed runtime-efficiency and in an error-resilient way. Janis > [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-21 19:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20241121110710.49@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #25905 |
On 2024-11-20, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 20.11.2024 09:21, Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org wrote: >> Regex itself is clumsy beyond simple search and replace patterns. A lot of >> stuff I've seen done in regex would have better done procedurally at the >> expense of slightly more code but a LOT more readability. Also given its >> effectively a compact language with its own grammar and syntax IMO it should >> not be the core part of any language as it can lead to a syntatic mess, which >> is what often happens with Perl. > > I wouldn't look at it that way. I've seen Regexps as part of languages > usually in well defined syntactical contexts. For example, like strings > are enclosed in "...", Regexps could be seen within /.../ delimiters. > GNU Awk (in recent versions) went towards first class "strongly typed" > Regexps which are then denoted by the @/.../ syntax. These features solve the problem of regexes being stored as character strings not being recognized by the language compiler and then having to be compiled at run-time. They don't solve all the ergonomics of regexes that Muttley is talking about. > I'm curious what you mean by Regexps presented in a "procedural" form. > Can you give some examples? Here is an example: using a regex match to capture a C comment /* ... */ in Lex compared to just recognizing the start sequence /* and handling the discarding of the comment in the action. Without non-greedy repetition matching, the regex for a C comment is quite obtuse. The procedural handling is straightforward: read characters until you see a * immediately followed by a /. In the wild, you see regexes being used for all sorts of stupid stuff, like checking whether numeric input is in a certain range, rather than converting it to a number and doing an arithmetic check. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 10:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhpl9c$14mdr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25928 |
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 19:12:03 -0000 (UTC) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> boring babbled: >On 2024-11-20, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >> I'm curious what you mean by Regexps presented in a "procedural" form. >> Can you give some examples? > >Here is an example: using a regex match to capture a C comment /* ... */ >in Lex compared to just recognizing the start sequence /* and handling >the discarding of the comment in the action. > >Without non-greedy repetition matching, the regex for a C comment is >quite obtuse. The procedural handling is straightforward: read >characters until you see a * immediately followed by a /. Its not that simple I'm afraid since comments can be commented out. eg: // int i; /* int j; /* int k; */ ++j; A C99 and C++ compiler would see "int j" and compile it, a regex would simply remove everything from the first /* to */. Also the same probably applies to #ifdef's.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 18:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20241122101217.134@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #25930 |
On 2024-11-22, Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org <Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org> wrote: > On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 19:12:03 -0000 (UTC) > Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> boring babbled: >>On 2024-11-20, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> I'm curious what you mean by Regexps presented in a "procedural" form. >>> Can you give some examples? >> >>Here is an example: using a regex match to capture a C comment /* ... */ >>in Lex compared to just recognizing the start sequence /* and handling >>the discarding of the comment in the action. >> >>Without non-greedy repetition matching, the regex for a C comment is >>quite obtuse. The procedural handling is straightforward: read >>characters until you see a * immediately followed by a /. > > Its not that simple I'm afraid since comments can be commented out. Umm, no. > > eg: > > // int i; /* This /* sequence is inside a // comment, and so the machinery that recognizes /* as the start of a comment would never see it. Just like "int i;" is in a string literal and so not recognized as a keyword, whitespace, identifier and semicolon. > int j; > /* > int k; > */ > ++j; > > A C99 and C++ compiler would see "int j" and compile it, a regex would > simply remove everything from the first /* to */. No, it won't, because that's not how regexes are used in a lexical analyzer. At the start of the input, the lexical analyzer faces the characters "// int i; /*\n". This will trigger the pattern match for // comments. Essentially that entire sequence through the newline is treated as a kind of token, equivalent to a space. Once a token is recognized and removed from the input, it is gone; no other regular expression can match into it. > Also the same probably applies to #ifdef's. Lexically analyzing C requires implementing the translation phases as described in the standard. There are preprocessor phases which delimit the input into preprocessor tokens (pp-tokens). Comments are stripped in preprocessing. But logical lines (backslash continuations) are recognized below comments; i.e. this is one comment: \\ comment \ split \ into \ physical \ lines A lexical scanner can have an input routine which transparently handles this low-level detail, so that it doesn't have to deal with the line continuations in every token pattern. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-23 11:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhsevk$1mk1v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25946 |
On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 18:18:04 -0000 (UTC) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> gabbled: >On 2024-11-22, Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org <Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org> wrote: >> Its not that simple I'm afraid since comments can be commented out. > >Umm, no. Umm, yes, they can. >> eg: >> >> // int i; /* > >This /* sequence is inside a // comment, and so the machinery that >recognizes /* as the start of a comment would never see it. Yes, thats kind of the point. You seem to be arguing against yourself. >> A C99 and C++ compiler would see "int j" and compile it, a regex would >> simply remove everything from the first /* to */. > >No, it won't, because that's not how regexes are used in a lexical Yes, it will. >> Also the same probably applies to #ifdef's. > >Lexically analyzing C requires implementing the translation phases >as described in the standard. There are preprocessor phases which >delimit the input into preprocessor tokens (pp-tokens). Comments >are stripped in preprocessing. But logical lines (backslash >continuations) are recognized below comments; i.e. this is one >comment: Not sure what your point is. A regex cannot be used to parse C comments because its doesn't know C/C++ grammar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 12:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vhpp96$15bjl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25928 |
On 21.11.2024 20:12, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > [...] > > In the wild, you see regexes being used for all sorts of stupid stuff, No one can prevent folks using features for stupid things. Yes. > like checking whether numeric input is in a certain range, rather than > converting it to a number and doing an arithmetic check. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 18:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20241122101819.161@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #25932 |
On 2024-11-22, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 21.11.2024 20:12, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> [...] >> >> In the wild, you see regexes being used for all sorts of stupid stuff, > > No one can prevent folks using features for stupid things. Yes. But the thing is that "modern" regular expressions (Perl regex and its progeny) have features that are designed to exclusively cater to these folks. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 20:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vhqlh7$1a8kb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25947 |
On 22.11.2024 19:19, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2024-11-22, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 21.11.2024 20:12, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>> In the wild, you see regexes being used for all sorts of stupid stuff, >> >> No one can prevent folks using features for stupid things. Yes. > > But the thing is that "modern" regular expressions (Perl regex and its > progeny) have features that are designed to exclusively cater to these > folks. Which ones are you specifically thinking of? Since I'm not using Perl I don't know all the Perl RE details. Besides the basic REs I'm aware of the abbreviations (like '\d') (that I like), then extensions of Chomsky-3 (like back-references) (that I also like to have in cases I need them; but one must know what we buy with them), then the minimum-match (as opposed to matching the longest substring) (which I think is useful to simplify some types of expressions), and there was another one that evades my memories, something like context dependent patterns (also useful), and wasn't there also some syntax to match subexpression-hierarchies (useful as well) (similar like in GNU Awk's gensub() (probably in a more primitive variant there), and also existing in Kornshell patterns that also supports some more from above [Perl-]features, like the abbreviations). Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Morton <mortonspam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-20 05:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vhki79$2pho$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25904 |
On 11/20/2024 2:21 AM, Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 18:43:48 -0800
> merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) boring babbled:
>>>>>>> "Lawrence" == Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>
>> Lawrence> Perl was the language that made regular expressions
>> Lawrence> sexy. Because it made them easy to use.
>>
>> I'm often reminded of this as I've been coding very little in Perl these
>> days, and a lot more in languages like Dart, where the regex feels like
>> a clumsy bolt-on rather than a proper first-class citizen.
>
> Regex itself is clumsy beyond simple search and replace patterns. A lot of
> stuff I've seen done in regex would have better done procedurally at the
> expense of slightly more code but a LOT more readability.
Definitely. The most relevant statement about regexps is this:
> Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use
> regular expressions." Now they have two problems.
attributed to Jamie Zawinski, see
https://blog.codinghorror.com/regular-expressions-now-you-have-two-problems/.
Obviously regexps are very useful and commonplace but if you find you
have to use some online site or other tools to help you write/understand
one or just generally need more than a couple of minutes to
write/understand it then it's time to back off and figure out a better
way to write your code for the sake of whoever has to read it 6 months
later (and usually for robustness too as it's hard to be sure all rainy
day cases are handled correctly in a lengthy and/or complicated regexp).
Ed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-20 12:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhkkka$3dja$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25907 |
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 05:46:49 -0600 Ed Morton <mortonspam@gmail.com> boring babbled: >On 11/20/2024 2:21 AM, Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org wrote: >> On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 18:43:48 -0800 >> merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) boring babbled: >>>>>>>> "Lawrence" == Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: >>> >>> Lawrence> Perl was the language that made regular expressions >>> Lawrence> sexy. Because it made them easy to use. >>> >>> I'm often reminded of this as I've been coding very little in Perl these >>> days, and a lot more in languages like Dart, where the regex feels like >>> a clumsy bolt-on rather than a proper first-class citizen. >> >> Regex itself is clumsy beyond simple search and replace patterns. A lot of >> stuff I've seen done in regex would have better done procedurally at the >> expense of slightly more code but a LOT more readability. > >Definitely. The most relevant statement about regexps is this: > > > Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use > > regular expressions." Now they have two problems. Very true! >Obviously regexps are very useful and commonplace but if you find you >have to use some online site or other tools to help you write/understand >one or just generally need more than a couple of minutes to >write/understand it then it's time to back off and figure out a better >way to write your code for the sake of whoever has to read it 6 months >later (and usually for robustness too as it's hard to be sure all rainy >day cases are handled correctly in a lengthy and/or complicated regexp). Edge cases are regex achilles heal, eg an expression that only accounted for 1 -> N chars, not 0 -> N, or matches in the middle but not at the ends.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-20 21:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhll6c$9gjn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25909 |
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 12:27:54 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote: > Edge cases are regex achilles heal, eg an expression that only accounted > for 1 -> N chars, not 0 -> N, or matches in the middle but not at the > ends. That’s what “^” and “$” are for.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-21 08:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhmq7d$ig5d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25916 |
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 21:43:41 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> boring babbled: >On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 12:27:54 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote: > >> Edge cases are regex achilles heal, eg an expression that only accounted >> for 1 -> N chars, not 0 -> N, or matches in the middle but not at the >> ends. > >That’s what “^” and “$” are for. Yes, but people forget about those (literal) edge cases.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-21 22:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhoaqp$qjkl$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25918 |
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 08:15:41 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote: > On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 21:43:41 -0000 (UTC) > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> boring babbled: > >>On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 12:27:54 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote: >> >>> Edge cases are regex achilles heal, eg an expression that only >>> accounted for 1 -> N chars, not 0 -> N, or matches in the middle but >>> not at the ends. >> >>That’s what “^” and “$” are for. > > Yes, but people forget about those (literal) edge cases. Those of us who are accustomed to using regexes do not. Another handy one is “\b” for word boundaries.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 19 of 37 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 37 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.unix.shell
csiph-web