Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.c > #19091

Re: does 0<(unsigned short)0x8000 hold?

From James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: does 0<(unsigned short)0x8000 hold?
Date 2012-03-27 16:11 -0400
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <4F721F0B.2050701@verizon.net> (permalink)
References <4f71cf85$0$21948$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <0.64ccc68ce1fe7a16cc7d.20120327172357BST.878vimnhb6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0.5a4e1aeae0758d15ba6c.20120327201205BST.87398too3e.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <4F7215D1.3080208@verizon.net> <8c95547a-d482-4404-b6fc-b2e909d7e130@k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw


On 03/27/2012 03:47 PM, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Mar 27, 9:32 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 03/27/2012 03:12 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> It's good to see that the change is just due to a change in terminology.
>>
>> Could you explain the change in terminology? I thought about the
>> possibility that something like that was involved, but I didn't notice
>> anything relevant.
> 
> I didn't notice it either, but as Tim Rentsch pointed out, the change
> is in 6.2.5p1.

Ah - that explains why I didn't know what Ben was talking about. I've
got Tim killfiled - not because he's a spammer or any other kind of
idiot, but just because I found that I frequently ended up wasting lots
of time in long discussions with him disagreeing about excessively
subtle issues without either of us ever managing to change the mind of
the other. That would not have mattered if the discussions had been fun,
or at least interesting, but I just found them frustrating - which could
just as easily have been my fault as his.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

does 0<(unsigned short)0x8000 hold? Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 16:32 +0200
  Re: does 0<(unsigned short)0x8000 hold? Harald van Dijk <haraldvdijk@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 09:09 -0700
  Re: does 0<(unsigned short)0x8000 hold? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-03-27 12:15 -0400
    Re: does 0<(unsigned short)0x8000 hold? Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 18:54 +0200
  Re: does 0<(unsigned short)0x8000 hold? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-03-27 17:23 +0100
    Re: does 0<(unsigned short)0x8000 hold? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-03-27 20:12 +0100
      Re: does 0<(unsigned short)0x8000 hold? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-03-27 15:32 -0400
        Re: does 0<(unsigned short)0x8000 hold? Harald van Dijk <haraldvdijk@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 12:47 -0700
          Re: does 0<(unsigned short)0x8000 hold? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-03-27 16:11 -0400
  Re: does 0<(unsigned short)0x8000 hold? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-03-27 10:32 -0700
    Re: does 0<(unsigned short)0x8000 hold? Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2012-03-28 15:08 +0200
  Re: does 0<(unsigned short)0x8000 hold? Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2012-03-28 09:07 +0200
    Re: does 0<(unsigned short)0x8000 hold? Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2012-03-28 16:15 +0200
      Re: does 0<(unsigned short)0x8000 hold? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-03-28 14:26 +0000
  Re: does 0<(unsigned short)0x8000 hold? Peter Nilsson <airia@acay.com.au> - 2012-03-27 23:22 -0700

csiph-web