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 18 of 37 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 37 Next page →
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-21 07:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <20241121075806.0000685c@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #25917 |
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 08:13:39 -0000 (UTC) Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org wrote: > I have zero time I approve, it's a wonderful album!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-20 17:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <875xohbxre.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> |
| In reply to | #25910 |
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).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-21 14:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhngoi$2p6$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #25913 |
In article <875xohbxre.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>, 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). - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-21 15:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <874j40sk01.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> |
| In reply to | #25922 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 13:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhq11q$nq7$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #25923 |
In article <874j40sk01.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>,
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.
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. And then there are other matters of context; does the
user intend for the regexp to match the _whole_ string? Or any
portion of the string (a la `grep`)? So, for example, does the
string "aaa1234aaa" match `[0-9]+`? As written, the above
snippet is actually closer to advancing `p` over `^[0-9]*`. One
might differentiate between `*` and `+` after the fact, by
examining `p` against some (presumably saved) source value, but
that's more code.
These are just not equivalent. That's not to say that your
snippet is not _useful_ in context, but to pretend that it's the
same as the regular expression is pointlessly reductive.
By the way, something that _would_ match `^[0-9]+$` might be:
term% cat mdp.c
#include <assert.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <stddef.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
static bool
mdigit(unsigned int c)
{
return c - '0' < 10;
}
bool
mdp(const char *str, const char *estr)
{
if (str == NULL || estr == NULL || str == estr)
return false;
if (!mdigit(*str))
return false;
while (str < estr && mdigit(*str))
str++;
return str == estr;
}
bool
probe(const char *s, bool expected)
{
if (mdp(s, s + strlen(s)) != expected) {
fprintf(stderr, "test failure: `%s` (expected %s)\n",
s, expected ? "true" : "false");
return false;
}
return true;
}
int
main(void)
{
bool success = true;
success = probe("1234", true) && success;
success = probe("", false) && success;
success = probe("ab", false) && success;
success = probe("0", true) && success;
success = probe("0123456789", true) && success;
success = probe("a0123456", false) && success;
success = probe("0123456b", false) && success;
success = probe("0123c456", false) && success;
success = probe("0123#456", false) && success;
return success ? EXIT_SUCCESS : EXIT_FAILURE;
}
term% cc -Wall -Wextra -Werror -pedantic -std=c11 mdp.c -o mdp
term% ./mdp
term% echo $?
0
term%
Granted the test scaffolding and `#include` boilerplate makes
this appear rather longer than it would be in context, but it's
still not nearly as succinct.
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 15:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <877c8vtgx6.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> |
| In reply to | #25935 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 15:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87zflrs1ti.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> |
| In reply to | #25936 |
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;
This needs to be
while (c = *p, c && c - '0' > 9) ++p
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 17:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhqed2$c71$2@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #25937 |
In article <87zflrs1ti.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>,
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> writes:
>
>[...]
>
>
>> Something which would match [0-9]+ in its first argument (if any) would
>> be:
>>
>> #include "string.h"
>> #include "stdlib.h"
>>
>> int main(int argc, char **argv)
>> {
>> char *p;
>> unsigned c;
>>
>> p = argv[1];
>> if (!p) exit(1);
>> while (c = *p, c && c - '0' > 10) ++p;
>
>This needs to be
>
>while (c = *p, c && c - '0' > 9) ++p
No, that's still wrong. Try actually running it.
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 17:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87v7wfrx26.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> |
| In reply to | #25939 |
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
> In article <87zflrs1ti.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>,
> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> writes:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>> Something which would match [0-9]+ in its first argument (if any) would
>>> be:
>>>
>>> #include "string.h"
>>> #include "stdlib.h"
>>>
>>> int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>> {
>>> char *p;
>>> unsigned c;
>>>
>>> p = argv[1];
>>> if (!p) exit(1);
>>> while (c = *p, c && c - '0' > 10) ++p;
>>
>>This needs to be
>>
>>while (c = *p, c && c - '0' > 9) ++p
>
> No, that's still wrong. Try actually running it.
If you know something that's wrong with that, why not write it instead
of utilizing the claim for pointless (and wrong) snide remarks?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 17:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhqfrs$bit$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #25940 |
In article <87v7wfrx26.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>,
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>> In article <87zflrs1ti.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>,
>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>>Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> writes:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>> Something which would match [0-9]+ in its first argument (if any) would
>>>> be:
>>>>
>>>> #include "string.h"
>>>> #include "stdlib.h"
>>>>
>>>> int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>>> {
>>>> char *p;
>>>> unsigned c;
>>>>
>>>> p = argv[1];
>>>> if (!p) exit(1);
>>>> while (c = *p, c && c - '0' > 10) ++p;
>>>
>>>This needs to be
>>>
>>>while (c = *p, c && c - '0' > 9) ++p
>>
>> No, that's still wrong. Try actually running it.
>
>If you know something that's wrong with that, why not write it instead
>of utilizing the claim for pointless (and wrong) snide remarks?
I did, at length, in my other post.
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 17:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhqfsv$bit$2@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #25941 |
In article <vhqfrs$bit$1@reader2.panix.com>,
Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>In article <87v7wfrx26.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>,
>Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>> In article <87zflrs1ti.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>,
>>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>>>Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Something which would match [0-9]+ in its first argument (if any) would
>>>>> be:
>>>>>
>>>>> #include "string.h"
>>>>> #include "stdlib.h"
>>>>>
>>>>> int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>>>> {
>>>>> char *p;
>>>>> unsigned c;
>>>>>
>>>>> p = argv[1];
>>>>> if (!p) exit(1);
>>>>> while (c = *p, c && c - '0' > 10) ++p;
>>>>
>>>>This needs to be
>>>>
>>>>while (c = *p, c && c - '0' > 9) ++p
>>>
>>> No, that's still wrong. Try actually running it.
>>
>>If you know something that's wrong with that, why not write it instead
>>of utilizing the claim for pointless (and wrong) snide remarks?
>
>I did, at length, in my other post.
Cf. <vhqebq$c71$1@reader2.panix.com>
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 17:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhqebq$c71$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #25936 |
In article <877c8vtgx6.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>,
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>> [snip]
>>>> 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.
Not really, no. The interesting thing in this case appears to
be knowing whether or not the match succeeded, but you omited
that part.
>> 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?
Because absent any surrounding context, there's no indication
that the source is even saved. You'll note that I did mention
that as a means to differentiate later on, but that's not the
snippet you posted.
>[...]
>
>> 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.
This is wrong in many ways. Did you actually test that program?
First of all, why `"string.h"` and not `<string.h>`? Ok, that's
not technically an error, but it's certainly unconventional, and
raises questions that are ultimately a distraction.
Second, suppose that `argc==0` (yes, this can happen under
POSIX).
Third, the loop: why `> 10`? Don't you mean `< 10`? You are
trying to match digits, not non-digits.
Fourth, you exit with failure (`exit(1)`) if `!p` *and* if `!c`
at the end, but `!c` there means you've reached the end of the
string; which should be success.
Fifth and finally, you `return 0;` which is EXIT_SUCCESS, in the
failure case.
Compare:
#include <regex.h>
#include <stddef.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int
main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
regex_t reprog;
int ret;
if (argc != 2) {
fprintf(stderr, "Usage: regexp pattern\n");
return(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
(void)regcomp(&reprog, "^[0-9]+$", REG_EXTENDED | REG_NOSUB);
ret = regexec(&reprog, argv[1], 0, NULL, 0);
regfree(&reprog);
return ret == 0 ? EXIT_SUCCESS : EXIT_FAILURE;
}
This is only marginally longer, but is correct.
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 17:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87o727rwga.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> |
| In reply to | #25938 |
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:
>>>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> 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.
>
> Not really, no. The interesting thing in this case appears to
> be knowing whether or not the match succeeded, but you omited
> that part.
This of interest to you as it enables you to base an 'argumentation'
(sarcasm) on arbitrary assumptions you've chosen to make. It's not
something I consider interesting and it's besides the point of the
example I posted.
>>> 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?
>
> Because absent any surrounding context, there's no indication
> that the source is even saved.
A text usually doesn't contain information about things which aren't
part of its content. I congratulate you to this rather obvious observation.
[...]
>>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.
>
> This is wrong in many ways. Did you actually test that program?
>
> First of all, why `"string.h"` and not `<string.h>`? Ok, that's
> not technically an error, but it's certainly unconventional, and
> raises questions that are ultimately a distraction.
Such as your paragraph above.
> Second, suppose that `argc==0` (yes, this can happen under
> POSIX).
It can happen in case of some piece of functionally hostile software
intentionally creating such a situation. Tangential, irrelevant
point. If you break it, you get to keep the parts.
> Third, the loop: why `> 10`? Don't you mean `< 10`? You are
> trying to match digits, not non-digits.
Mistake I made. The opposite of < 10 is > 9.
> Fourth, you exit with failure (`exit(1)`) if `!p` *and* if `!c`
> at the end, but `!c` there means you've reached the end of the
> string; which should be success.
Mistake you made: [0-9]+ matches if there's at least one digit in the
string. That's why the loop terminates once one was found. In this case,
c cannot be 0.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 18:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhqhii$d5e$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #25943 |
In article <87o727rwga.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>,
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>>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.
>>
>> This is wrong in many ways. Did you actually test that program?
>>
>> First of all, why `"string.h"` and not `<string.h>`? Ok, that's
>> not technically an error, but it's certainly unconventional, and
>> raises questions that are ultimately a distraction.
>
>Such as your paragraph above.
>
>> Second, suppose that `argc==0` (yes, this can happen under
>> POSIX).
>
>It can happen in case of some piece of functionally hostile software
>intentionally creating such a situation. Tangential, irrelevant
>point. If you break it, you get to keep the parts.
>
>> Third, the loop: why `> 10`? Don't you mean `< 10`? You are
>> trying to match digits, not non-digits.
>
>Mistake I made. The opposite of < 10 is > 9.
I see. So you want to skip non-digits and exit the first time
you see a digit. Ok, fair enough, though that program has
already been written, and is called `grep`.
>> Fourth, you exit with failure (`exit(1)`) if `!p` *and* if `!c`
>> at the end, but `!c` there means you've reached the end of the
>> string; which should be success.
>
>Mistake you made: [0-9]+ matches if there's at least one digit in the
>string. That's why the loop terminates once one was found. In this case,
>c cannot be 0.
Ah, you are trying to match `[0-9]` (though you're calling it
`[0-9]+`). Yeah, your program was not at all equivalent to one
I wrote, though this is what you posted in response to mine, so
I assumed you were trying to emulate that behavior (matching
`^[0-9]+$`).
But I see above that you mentioned `[0-9]+`. But as I mentioned
above, really you're just matching any digit, so you may as well
be matching `[0-9]`; again, this not the same as the actual
regexp, because you are ignoring the semantics of what regular
expressions actually describe.
In any event, this seems simpler than what you posted:
#include <stddef.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int
main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
if (argc != 2) {
fprintf(stderr, "Usage: matchd <str>\n");
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
for (const char *p = argv[1]; *p != '\0'; p++)
if ('0' <= *p && *p <= '9')
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 18:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87h67zrtns.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> |
| In reply to | #25944 |
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
[...]
> In any event, this seems simpler than what you posted:
>
> #include <stddef.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
>
> int
> main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> if (argc != 2) {
> fprintf(stderr, "Usage: matchd <str>\n");
> return EXIT_FAILURE;
> }
>
> for (const char *p = argv[1]; *p != '\0'; p++)
> if ('0' <= *p && *p <= '9')
> return EXIT_SUCCESS;
>
> return EXIT_FAILURE;
> }
It's not only 4 lines longer but in just about every individual aspect
syntactically more complicated and more messy and functionally more
clumsy. This is particularly noticable in the loop
for (const char *p = argv[1]; *p != '\0'; p++)
if ('0' <= *p && *p <= '9')
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
the loop header containing a spuriously qualified variable declaration,
the loop body and half of the termination condition. The other half then
follows as special-case in the otherwise useless loop body.
It looks like a copy of my code which each individual bit redesigned
under the guiding principle of "Can we make this more complicated?", eg,
char **argv
declares an array of pointers (as each pointer in C points to an array)
and
char *argv[]
accomplishes exactly the same but uses both more characters and more
different kinds of characters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 19:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhqkm6$7dv$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #25950 |
In article <87h67zrtns.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>,
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>> In any event, this seems simpler than what you posted:
>>
>> #include <stddef.h>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>>
>> int
>> main(int argc, char *argv[])
>> {
>> if (argc != 2) {
>> fprintf(stderr, "Usage: matchd <str>\n");
>> return EXIT_FAILURE;
>> }
>>
>> for (const char *p = argv[1]; *p != '\0'; p++)
>> if ('0' <= *p && *p <= '9')
>> return EXIT_SUCCESS;
>>
>> return EXIT_FAILURE;
>> }
>
>It's not only 4 lines longer but in just about every individual aspect
>syntactically more complicated and more messy and functionally more
>clumsy.
That's a lot of opinion, and not particularly well-founded
opinion at that, given that your code was incorrect to begin
with.
>This is particularly noticable in the loop
>
> for (const char *p = argv[1]; *p != '\0'; p++)
> if ('0' <= *p && *p <= '9')
> return EXIT_SUCCESS;
>
>the loop header containing a spuriously qualified variable declaration,
Ibid. Const qualifying a pointer that I'm not going to assign
through is just good hygiene, IMHO.
>the loop body and half of the termination condition.
I think you're trying to project a value judgement onto that
loop in order to make it fit a particular world view, but I
think this is an odd way to look at it.
Another way to loop at it is that the loop is only concerned
with the iteration over the string, while the body is concerned
with applying some predicate to the element, and doing something
if that predicate evaluates it to true.
>The other half then
>follows as special-case in the otherwise useless loop body.
That's a way to look at it, but I submit that's an outlier point
of view.
>It looks like a copy of my code which each individual bit redesigned
>under the guiding principle of "Can we make this more complicated?", eg,
Uh, no.
>char **argv
>
>declares an array of pointers
No, it declares a pointer to a pointer to char.
>(as each pointer in C points to an array)
That's absolutely not true. A pointer in C may refer to
an array, or a scalar. Consider,
char c;
char *p = &c;
char **pp = &p;
For a concrete example of how this works in a real function,
consider the second argument to `strtol` et al in the standard
library.
>and
>
>char *argv[]
>
>accomplishes exactly the same but uses both more characters and more
>different kinds of characters.
"more characters" is a poor metric.
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 19:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <878qtbrs0o.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> |
| In reply to | #25952 |
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> In any event, this seems simpler than what you posted:
>>>
>>> #include <stddef.h>
>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>> #include <stdlib.h>
>>>
>>> int
>>> main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>> {
>>> if (argc != 2) {
>>> fprintf(stderr, "Usage: matchd <str>\n");
>>> return EXIT_FAILURE;
>>> }
>>>
>>> for (const char *p = argv[1]; *p != '\0'; p++)
>>> if ('0' <= *p && *p <= '9')
>>> return EXIT_SUCCESS;
>>>
>>> return EXIT_FAILURE;
>>> }
>>
>>It's not only 4 lines longer but in just about every individual aspect
>>syntactically more complicated and more messy and functionally more
>>clumsy.
>
> That's a lot of opinion, and not particularly well-founded
> opinion at that, given that your code was incorrect to begin
> with.
That's not at all an opinion but an observation. My opinion on this is
that this is either a poor man's attempt at winning an obfuscation
context or - simpler - exemplary bad code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 19:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhqn2n$7dc$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #25955 |
In article <878qtbrs0o.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>,
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>> In any event, this seems simpler than what you posted:
>>>>
>>>> #include <stddef.h>
>>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>>> #include <stdlib.h>
>>>>
>>>> int
>>>> main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>> {
>>>> if (argc != 2) {
>>>> fprintf(stderr, "Usage: matchd <str>\n");
>>>> return EXIT_FAILURE;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> for (const char *p = argv[1]; *p != '\0'; p++)
>>>> if ('0' <= *p && *p <= '9')
>>>> return EXIT_SUCCESS;
>>>>
>>>> return EXIT_FAILURE;
>>>> }
>>>
>>>It's not only 4 lines longer but in just about every individual aspect
>>>syntactically more complicated and more messy and functionally more
>>>clumsy.
>>
>> That's a lot of opinion, and not particularly well-founded
>> opinion at that, given that your code was incorrect to begin
>> with.
>
>That's not at all an opinion but an observation. My opinion on this is
>that this is either a poor man's attempt at winning an obfuscation
>context or - simpler - exemplary bad code.
Opinion (noun)
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on
fact or knowledge. "I'm writing to voice my opinion on an issue of
little importance"
You mentioned snark earlier. Physician, heal thyself.
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 18:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sS30P.4663$YSkc.427@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #25936 |
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> writes:
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>>>>Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I think that writing bulky procedural stuff for something
>>>>>> like [0-9]+ can only be much worse, and that further abbreviations
>>>>>> like \d+ are the better direction to go if targeting a good interface.
>>>>>> YMMV.
>>>>>
>>>>>Assuming that p is a pointer to the current position in a string, e is a
>>>>>pointer to the end of it (ie, point just past the last byte) and -
>>>>>that's important - both are pointers to unsigned quantities, the 'bulky'
>>>>>C equivalent of [0-9]+ is
>>>>>
>>>>>while (p < e && *p - '0' < 10) ++p;
>>>>>
>>>>>That's not too bad. And it's really a hell lot faster than a
>>>>>general-purpose automaton programmed to recognize the same pattern
>>>>>(which might not matter most of the time, but sometimes, it does).
>>>>
>>>> It's also not exactly right. `[0-9]+` would match one or more
>>>> characters; this possibly matches 0 (ie, if `p` pointed to
>>>> something that wasn't a digit).
>>>
>>>The regex won't match any digits if there aren't any. In this case, the
>>>match will fail. I didn't include the code for handling that because it
>>>seemed pretty pointless for the example.
>>
>> That's rather the point though, isn't it? The program snippet
>> (modulo the promotion to signed int via the "usual arithmetic
>> conversions" before the subtraction and comparison giving you
>> unexpected values; nothing to do with whether `char` is signed
>> or not) is a snippet that advances a pointer while it points to
>> a digit, starting at the current pointer position; that is, it
>> just increments a pointer over a run of digits.
>
>That's the core part of matching someting equivalent to the regex [0-9]+
>and the only part of it is which is at least remotely interesting.
>
>> But that's not the same as a regex matcher, which has a semantic
>> notion of success or failure. I could run your snippet against
>> a string such as, say, "ZZZZZZ" and it would "succeed" just as
>> it would against an empty string or a string of one or more
>> digits.
>
>Why do you believe that p being equivalent to the starting position
>would be considered a "successful match", considering that this
>obviously doesn't make any sense?
>
>[...]
>
>> By the way, something that _would_ match `^[0-9]+$` might be:
>
>[too much code]
>
>Something which would match [0-9]+ in its first argument (if any) would
>be:
>
>#include "string.h"
>#include "stdlib.h"
>
>int main(int argc, char **argv)
>{
> char *p;
> unsigned c;
>
> p = argv[1];
> if (!p) exit(1);
> while (c = *p, c && c - '0' > 10) ++p;
> if (!c) exit(1);
> return 0;
>}
>
>but that's 14 lines of text, 13 of which have absolutely no relation to
>the problem of recognizing a digit.
Personally, I'd use:
$ cat /tmp/a.c
#include <stdint.h>
#include <string.h>
int
main(int argc, const char **argv)
{
char *cp;
uint64_t value;
if (argc < 2) return 1;
value = strtoull(argv[1], &cp, 10);
if ((cp == argv[1])
|| (*cp != '\0')) {
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
$ cc -o /tmp/a /tmp/a.c
$ /tmp/a 13254
$ echo $?
0
$ /tmp/a 23v23
$ echo $?
1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 18:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <VZ30P.4664$YSkc.1894@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #25945 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> writes:
>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>>>>>Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally I think that writing bulky procedural stuff for something
>>>>>>> like [0-9]+ can only be much worse, and that further abbreviations
>>>>>>> like \d+ are the better direction to go if targeting a good interface.
>>>>>>> YMMV.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Assuming that p is a pointer to the current position in a string, e is a
>>>>>>pointer to the end of it (ie, point just past the last byte) and -
>>>>>>that's important - both are pointers to unsigned quantities, the 'bulky'
>>>>>>C equivalent of [0-9]+ is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>while (p < e && *p - '0' < 10) ++p;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's not too bad. And it's really a hell lot faster than a
>>>>>>general-purpose automaton programmed to recognize the same pattern
>>>>>>(which might not matter most of the time, but sometimes, it does).
>>>>>
>>>>> It's also not exactly right. `[0-9]+` would match one or more
>>>>> characters; this possibly matches 0 (ie, if `p` pointed to
>>>>> something that wasn't a digit).
>>>>
>>>>The regex won't match any digits if there aren't any. In this case, the
>>>>match will fail. I didn't include the code for handling that because it
>>>>seemed pretty pointless for the example.
>>>
>>> That's rather the point though, isn't it? The program snippet
>>> (modulo the promotion to signed int via the "usual arithmetic
>>> conversions" before the subtraction and comparison giving you
>>> unexpected values; nothing to do with whether `char` is signed
>>> or not) is a snippet that advances a pointer while it points to
>>> a digit, starting at the current pointer position; that is, it
>>> just increments a pointer over a run of digits.
>>
>>That's the core part of matching someting equivalent to the regex [0-9]+
>>and the only part of it is which is at least remotely interesting.
>>
>>> But that's not the same as a regex matcher, which has a semantic
>>> notion of success or failure. I could run your snippet against
>>> a string such as, say, "ZZZZZZ" and it would "succeed" just as
>>> it would against an empty string or a string of one or more
>>> digits.
>>
>>Why do you believe that p being equivalent to the starting position
>>would be considered a "successful match", considering that this
>>obviously doesn't make any sense?
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> By the way, something that _would_ match `^[0-9]+$` might be:
>>
>>[too much code]
>>
>>Something which would match [0-9]+ in its first argument (if any) would
>>be:
>>
>>#include "string.h"
>>#include "stdlib.h"
>>
>>int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>{
>> char *p;
>> unsigned c;
>>
>> p = argv[1];
>> if (!p) exit(1);
>> while (c = *p, c && c - '0' > 10) ++p;
>> if (!c) exit(1);
>> return 0;
>>}
>>
>>but that's 14 lines of text, 13 of which have absolutely no relation to
>>the problem of recognizing a digit.
>
>Personally, I'd use:
Albeit this is limited to strings of digits that sum to less than
ULONG_MAX...
>
>$ cat /tmp/a.c
>#include <stdint.h>
>#include <string.h>
>
>int
>main(int argc, const char **argv)
>{
> char *cp;
> uint64_t value;
>
> if (argc < 2) return 1;
>
> value = strtoull(argv[1], &cp, 10);
> if ((cp == argv[1])
> || (*cp != '\0')) {
> return 1;
> }
> return 0;
>}
>$ cc -o /tmp/a /tmp/a.c
>$ /tmp/a 13254
>$ echo $?
>0
>$ /tmp/a 23v23
>$ echo $?
>1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 37 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 37 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.unix.shell
csiph-web