Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mit.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Constant strings
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 04:09:51 +0200
Organization: http://www.ieee.org/
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <87a9b77cb4.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <On74v.12687$sa2.3320@fx33.am4> <87tx9fn4cs.fsf@gmail.com> <eIW6v.60321$IN1.44973@en-nntp-15.dc1.easynews.com> <ljhlbq$vog$1@usenet.stanford.edu> <ljhm52$61g$1@news.xmission.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mit.eternal-september.org; posting-host="4af8175e487d1d8249b5548b81726a30"; logging-data="22031"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX197VVDUTRBC7fq5PiVUTnzYvLdbcrY0icU="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pkWrIFnahWLhvEQJ2jJieY+nwWA= sha1:94HUO+SQozkI6ta9qyk1ManQZzE=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:43634

gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

> In article <ljhlbq$vog$1@usenet.stanford.edu>,
> Seungbeom Kim  <musiphil@bawi.org> wrote:
>>On 2014-04-26 15:47, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/26/14, 5:54 PM, Richard wrote:
>>>> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> Because C doesn't have "subroutines".
>>>>
>>>> Can you elaborate please? I need a good cringe.
>>> 
>>> My guess he is referring to the fact that in C we have just "functions",
>>> but nothing called a "subroutine". Some languages make a distinction,
>>> but in C we have "function returning void", where some other language
>>> may call it a subroutine.
>>
>>I've seen languages that differentiate procedures and functions,
>>but I've always thought that subroutines are a general term referring
>>to reusable program units, including procedures and functions and
>>even any portion of a BASIC program, without a clear block structure,
>>that can be called by GOSUB <line number>.
>
> I would venture that the word "subroutine" does not occur in the C
> standards documents (Note: I may be wrong about this - it might be in there
> somewhere for some reason or another - but the point still stands.  There
> is nothing in the C universe, as it is defined in this newsgroup, that is a
> "subroutine").  In any case, I'm sure Kiki is grepping it already as we
> speak...
>
> As an illustration, think about what a feeding frenzy all the regs go into
> everytime some hapless soul mentions "references" or "call by reference"
> here.  The sharks circle for the chance to be the first to crow that these
> things don't exist in C.  But anyone with any self-awareness knows
> perfectly well what we mean when we talk about them in the context of C,
> just as here anyone with any self-awareness knows what we mean when we talk
> about a subroutine in C.
>
> But this shouldn't stop the regs from having their little feeding
> frenzy.

Ah. As I thought. Nice one.


-- 
"Avoid hyperbole at all costs, its the most destructive argument on
the planet" - Mark McIntyre in comp.lang.c