Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #387043
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? |
| Date | 2024-07-11 12:15 +0300 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <20240711121502.0000614e@yahoo.com> (permalink) |
| References | (21 earlier) <86ikxd8czu.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20240710201454.0000527e@yahoo.com> <v6mnch$21n94$1@dont-email.me> <20240711111357.00007712@yahoo.com> <20240711012852.856@kylheku.com> |
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 08:41:14 -0000 (UTC)
Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:
> On 2024-07-11, Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 21:28:15 +0200
> > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/07/2024 19:14, Michael S wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 08:48:05 -0700
> >> > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >>> I earlier asked this:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> "So if arrays aren't passed by value in C, and they aren't
> >> >>> passed by reference, then how the hell ARE they passed?!"
> >> >>
> >> >> They aren't. C allows lots of things to be passed as an
> >> >> argument to a function: several varieties of numeric values,
> >> >> structs, unions, and pointers, including both pointers to
> >> >> object types and pointers to function types. C does not have a
> >> >> way for a function to take an argument that is either an array
> >> >> or a function. There is a way to take pointers to those
> >> >> things, but not the things themselves. Arrays and functions
> >> >> are second-class values in C.
> >> >
> >> > I'd like to see an example of the language that permits
> >> > ahead-of-time compilation and has functions as first-class
> >> > values.
> >>
> >> Haskell is the first the comes to mind for me, but you could pick
> >> any compiled functional programming language.
> >>
> >> I am by no means a Haskell expert, and I am not at all familiar
> >> with the way the language is compiled. But it is quite clear that
> >> it is an example of a language that has functions as first-class
> >> objects, and which is ahead-of-time compiled. The example below
> >> defines an int-to-int function "doubler", and also a
> >> function-to-function function "doTwice", and a function quadrupler
> >> that is defined as the result of applying the higher-order
> >> function doTwice to doubler. These are all compiled to assembly.
> >>
> >> <https://godbolt.org/z/Tb7hGYsdv>
> >>
> >>
> >> module Example where
> >>
> >> doubler :: Int -> Int
> >> doubler x = 2 * x
> >>
> >> doTwice :: (Int -> Int) -> (Int -> Int)
> >> doTwice f x = f (f x)
> >>
> >> quadrupler = doTwice doubler
> >>
> >> shouldBeEighty = quadrupler 20
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> You can write much the same in C++ using lambdas (which are objects
> >> and can be passed around and returned as such) and templates (which
> >> are needed because the type of lambdas is hidden). Unfortunately,
> >> this also means that the functions don't get individually generated
> >> functions in assembly:
> >>
> >> <https://godbolt.org/z/KvPWz3n8z>
> >>
> >> auto doubler = [](int x) -> int { return 2 * x; };
> >>
> >> auto doTwice = [](auto f) -> auto
> >> {
> >> return [f](int x) -> int { return f(f(x)); };
> >> };
> >>
> >> auto quadrupler = doTwice(doubler);
> >>
> >> auto shouldBeEiqhty = quadrupler(20);
> >>
> >
> > I fail to see a material difference between first class function
> > values in Haskell and C++ and first class function pointer values
> > in C:
> >
> > int doubler(int x) {
> > return x*2;
> > }
> > int doTwice(int (*foo)(int), int x) {
> > return foo(foo(x));
> > }
> > int quadrupler(int x) {
> > return doTwice(doubler, x);
> > }
> >
> > I am willing to believe that the difference exists, but your
> > example is too basic to demonstrate it.
>
> First class functions could do something like this:
>
> // multiplier takes a coefficient and returns a pointer to
> // function
>
> int (*multiplier(int coefficient))(int) {
> // fantasy lambda syntax. Return type int is written after
> // parameter list.
> return lambda(int x) int {
> return coefficient * x;
> }
> }
>
> int (*doubler)(int) = multiplier(2);
>
> int x = doubler(42); // x becomes 84
>
> Even though the lambda is returned out of multiplier, whose execution
> terminates, when the returned function is invoked, it can refer to the
> coefficient, which is captured in a lexical closure.
>
> With a C-like typedef, we can declutter the definition of mutiplier:
>
> typedef int (*int_int_fn)(int);
>
> int_int_fn multiplier(int coefficient) {
> return lambda(int x) int {
> return coefficient * x;
> }
> }
>
Thank you.
Your example confirms my suspicion that the difference between first
and second class of functions doesn't become material until language
supports closures.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? aotto1968 <aotto1968@t-online.de> - 2024-07-04 17:16 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-05 01:05 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 02:30 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-05 07:52 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2024-07-05 09:12 +0042
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 01:09 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-05 08:25 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 04:19 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-05 12:20 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 08:28 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-05 23:40 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 22:30 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-06 19:01 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 13:47 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-06 23:41 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 16:42 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-06 20:04 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 23:28 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-07 12:35 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-07 14:57 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 11:23 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 13:46 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-06 20:15 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 17:01 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-06 02:24 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 01:39 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 11:46 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-06 07:23 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 03:51 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 04:23 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-06 14:26 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 14:33 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-09 16:37 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-09 18:54 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-09 20:03 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 13:23 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 15:38 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 23:55 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-07 10:03 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-07 15:10 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-07 19:22 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-08 00:02 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-08 12:39 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-09 16:31 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-09 15:54 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-09 16:58 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-09 17:29 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-09 18:22 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 14:14 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-10 00:15 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 19:08 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-09 21:28 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-09 14:23 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-10 00:35 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-10 13:51 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-10 14:32 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-07-10 11:26 -0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-10 15:49 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-10 17:09 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-10 08:48 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-10 20:14 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-10 21:28 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-11 11:13 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-11 08:41 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-11 12:15 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-11 10:02 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-11 11:17 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-11 12:20 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-11 11:56 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-10 22:49 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-11 07:02 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-11 15:19 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-11 14:29 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-11 16:42 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-10 18:30 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-10 21:39 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-10 20:04 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-11 11:31 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-11 04:49 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-11 14:00 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-11 06:26 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-11 15:04 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-11 11:53 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-11 20:56 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-11 13:29 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-11 21:36 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-12 07:53 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-12 12:03 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-12 13:51 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-12 14:36 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-12 19:13 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-12 19:32 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-13 11:46 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-13 11:37 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-17 14:42 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-17 19:31 +0200
Re: Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-07-17 18:49 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 08:46 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-12 12:46 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-12 19:39 +0100
Re: Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-07-12 14:17 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 13:50 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-11 21:37 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-11 14:00 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-12 07:54 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-12 13:44 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-12 14:59 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-13 04:39 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 21:04 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-13 11:46 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-13 18:44 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 08:51 -0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-10 13:26 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-10 18:29 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-11 04:28 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-10 11:54 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-10 17:48 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-11 00:01 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-11 01:21 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-11 02:29 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-10 18:36 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-11 11:54 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-11 11:04 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-11 13:25 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-11 12:41 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-11 12:22 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-11 17:58 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-11 18:25 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-11 11:27 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-12 08:00 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-12 13:12 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-12 12:21 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-12 12:14 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 09:54 -0700
Re: technology discussion ? does the world need a "new" C ? dave_thompson_2@comcast.net - 2024-08-25 17:16 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-01 18:09 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-01 19:01 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-09-02 12:10 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-02 15:18 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-08 06:04 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-15 23:56 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-16 03:37 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-16 18:15 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-17 06:15 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-17 19:07 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-17 12:52 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-26 09:37 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 21:28 -0700
Wording discussion (was Re: technology discussion) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-27 14:21 +0200
Re: Wording discussion (was Re: technology discussion) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-27 14:09 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-27 14:03 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-28 00:26 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-28 06:43 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-10-29 08:07 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-09-16 22:41 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-12 15:22 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 08:58 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-12 19:33 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 13:38 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-17 16:42 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-12 11:52 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-12 15:35 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-12 15:42 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-12 15:07 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-12 16:31 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-13 04:49 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-12 15:44 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-13 12:13 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-13 02:01 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 04:39 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-13 12:35 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-13 14:43 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-17 12:38 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-17 16:34 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-17 16:56 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-15 01:43 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-15 13:48 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-15 15:33 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-15 17:08 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-16 01:08 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-16 12:10 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-16 02:18 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-16 12:38 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-16 12:28 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-16 11:40 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-16 11:17 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-16 11:42 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-16 11:00 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-16 16:31 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-19 00:54 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-18 18:03 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-19 09:26 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-19 12:22 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-19 14:14 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-19 21:18 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-16 10:56 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-17 12:26 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-17 11:38 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-16 15:19 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-17 07:41 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-17 18:07 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-17 18:22 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-18 12:35 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-19 01:01 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-19 01:57 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-19 02:30 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-19 12:29 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-20 00:33 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-20 12:42 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-16 10:04 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-16 12:45 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-16 16:51 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-15 14:36 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-15 23:22 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-15 23:29 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-16 01:46 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-15 18:21 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2024-08-16 03:37 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-16 12:14 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-15 14:52 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-17 19:07 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-17 12:53 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-18 09:46 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-18 05:05 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-18 14:41 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-18 14:00 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-18 18:01 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-18 14:25 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-07-18 22:23 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-18 12:40 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-13 13:35 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-17 01:09 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-12 07:34 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-11 04:35 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-10 16:54 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-10 16:40 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-10 21:46 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-10 13:47 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-10 22:40 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-10 16:00 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-12 13:38 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-09 22:32 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-10 00:04 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 16:50 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-10 01:38 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 18:18 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-10 11:12 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-10 13:05 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-10 03:19 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-09 18:31 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 13:05 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-09 18:39 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-07-09 16:20 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 13:55 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-09 16:22 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 16:43 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-10 09:41 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-10 12:59 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-10 21:52 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-07 22:10 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-08 00:28 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-08 10:53 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-08 19:01 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-10 04:29 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 21:56 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-10 01:22 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-10 06:05 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-06 14:28 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-06 19:53 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-10 04:27 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-10 02:38 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-10 10:58 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-12 15:36 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 15:45 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-06 21:18 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 18:35 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 15:23 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-10 05:55 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-10 03:07 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-10 02:52 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-10 11:27 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-10 14:23 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-06 05:42 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-05 14:31 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 10:48 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-06 01:38 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 19:00 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-06 04:36 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-06 07:25 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-06 23:24 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 15:55 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-06 21:34 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-10 00:57 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-10 03:16 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-11 02:51 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-11 12:46 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-07-11 13:57 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-11 14:50 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-07-11 12:44 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 12:17 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-11 12:09 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-06 20:15 -0700
Re: technology discussion ? does the world need a "new" C ? dave_thompson_2@comcast.net - 2024-08-25 16:59 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-06 04:29 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-06 01:46 -0400
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-06 10:21 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 16:04 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-07 01:36 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 18:39 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? lexi hale <lexi@hale.su> - 2024-07-05 21:54 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-07-07 06:35 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? aotto1968 <aotto1968@t-online.de> - 2024-07-07 20:29 +0200
csiph-web