Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? |
| Date | 2015-02-11 11:52 -0500 |
| Organization | Self |
| Message-ID | <54DB88BF.9080205@verizon.net> (permalink) |
| References | (19 earlier) <mbd3b9$jl6$1@dont-email.me> <mbecnj$9r9$1@dont-email.me> <mbfk4m$9bj$1@dont-email.me> <mbflg7$f9j$2@dont-email.me> <mbfnn9$pkq$1@dont-email.me> |
On 02/11/2015 09:08 AM, James Kuyper wrote: ... [OT] > Titles are not ordinary language. Where they have legal meaning (which > does not include the US) they are tightly regulated by law. I overstated the case quite a bit there. I was thinking of Article 9 of the US constitution, which says "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.", and Article 10 which says, "No State shall ... grant any Title of Nobility." That's quite a bit weaker than saying "Titles ... have no legal meaning". I presume that official recognition of any foreign state that does grant titles of nobility implies recognition, in the appropriate contexts, of those titles themselves. There are no associated legal benefits to holding such a title in the US, but legal issues could, for instance, come up involving property associated with a title - and if the US didn't recognize those property rights, it would make relations with such countries very difficult. [/OT]
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kamel Biskri <email@domain.com> - 2014-11-28 23:45 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> - 2015-02-05 04:40 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 11:08 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-05 14:18 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 13:52 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-02-05 14:32 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 14:55 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-02-05 17:07 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 14:49 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 15:01 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 15:31 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 15:58 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-05 13:07 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-05 16:18 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-05 13:43 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 21:54 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? jak <please@nospam.tnx> - 2015-03-10 10:43 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-05 17:01 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-02-06 15:55 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-02-05 21:24 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-05 13:34 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 21:43 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-05 13:58 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 22:07 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-02-05 18:11 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-02-06 12:15 +1300
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 10:08 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 09:19 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-06 03:34 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-06 08:22 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? guinness.tony@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 03:39 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-02-06 15:45 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 08:31 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 13:45 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 09:18 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 07:08 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 15:15 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 07:31 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 15:37 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 08:15 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 17:13 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 10:48 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 16:47 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-02-06 09:52 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 12:08 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-02-06 11:32 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 12:41 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-07 14:21 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-02-06 18:03 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-02-06 13:28 -0700
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-07 14:22 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-06 13:56 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 16:55 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-02-06 18:06 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 18:16 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 13:34 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 18:44 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-02-06 19:00 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-06 17:44 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-02-07 01:46 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-07 00:20 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-02-07 06:47 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-07 01:26 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-07 01:34 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-07 11:59 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-07 11:57 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-06 10:51 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 19:05 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-06 11:23 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 11:31 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-02-06 15:26 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-09 21:19 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Jim Barlow <jim.j.barlow@gmail.com> - 2015-02-09 21:16 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-10 05:36 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-02-10 07:53 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-10 15:08 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-02-10 19:57 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-11 10:19 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-02-11 07:32 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-11 15:32 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-11 14:06 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-11 08:07 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-02-11 07:33 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-11 09:08 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-11 14:29 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-11 16:28 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-11 11:52 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-11 10:37 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-02-11 19:02 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-02-12 14:55 +1300
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-11 15:38 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-11 16:09 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-02-14 18:39 +0200
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-10 10:14 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-02-06 17:49 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-02-06 15:59 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-06 13:34 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 16:58 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-09 21:21 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-02-06 20:54 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-06 21:27 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-02-07 11:31 +1300
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-07 00:22 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 21:57 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-02-05 10:10 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-05 16:48 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 16:02 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 10:14 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 09:26 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-06 08:36 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 17:20 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-07 12:05 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-08 12:02 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-05 11:59 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-05 10:47 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 19:38 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-05 13:40 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-02-06 10:54 +1300
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-05 15:27 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-05 13:04 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-05 14:18 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-05 18:35 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 08:47 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-07 00:32 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 21:53 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-05 12:17 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 10:26 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-02-05 08:26 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 09:12 -0500
csiph-web