Re: some well known stupidness in c99

Path	csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From	Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: some well known stupidness in c99
Date	Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:29:47 +1300
Lines	36
Message-ID	<ah2b2bFsvchU3@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	<691430a0-0d95-40ac-8ca4-5ceab7db74db@googlegroups.com> <k8b0ei$d3a$1@dont-email.me> <6e37296c-acf0-4fb7-8370-9ad3fe80c12e@googlegroups.com> <k8bfbp$fro$1@dont-email.me> <95e6588e-0464-4e23-b18f-c88ee17a6f94@googlegroups.com> <ln6252h7sv.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <80b8b8da-1b9f-44b1-b600-34a8798a3f79@googlegroups.com> <ln8v9wnfir.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
X-Trace	individual.net R9SgS4M+9ButnK1ZdRPdFgvDHBLE7VyLETM4zfBlM0m+l5j/eV6Lv3D+2ckNvwMNZd
Cancel-Lock	sha1:BJ+5OSwtv89ddpbbHF2IrrZ1OCo=
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; SunOS i86pc; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120423 Thunderbird/12.0
In-Reply-To	<ln8v9wnfir.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.c:28490

Show key headers only | View raw

On 11/21/12 10:14, Keith Thompson wrote:
>
> The problem (and I agree that it's a problem) is that "const" doesn't
> mean "constant".  It means "read-only".  As such, it works exactly the
> way it's supposed to.
>
> So as I see it, there are two problems here, neither of them horrible.
>
> First, the "const" keyword would cause less confusion if it were spelled
> "readonly".  It could work exactly the way it works now, and it wouldn't
> raise the expectation that a readonly object can be used as a constant
> expression.
>
> Second, there's no way (other than enum and #define, both of which have
> their problems) to define an identifier that can be used as a constant
> expression.
>
> We don't have the luxury of redefining the language and breaking
> existing code, but if we did, I'd suggest the following (among many
> other things):
>
> 1. Change the "const" keyword to "readonly".
>
> 2. Add a "constant" keyword, allowing you to define things like:
>
>      constant int x = 42;
>
>      constant int y = 1.0/3.0; /* not exactly representable,
>                                   but still constant */
>
>      constant char ESC = '\x1b';

Or just adopt the C++ rules and avoid breaking any valid existing code!

-- 
Ian Collins

Thread

some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 01:21 -0800
  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2012-11-18 10:41 +0100
  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 SG <sgesemann@gmail.invalid> - 2012-11-18 10:41 +0100
    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 02:02 -0800
      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 SG <sgesemann@gmail.invalid> - 2012-11-18 11:23 +0100
        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 02:26 -0800
      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-18 12:16 +0000
        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 05:27 -0800
          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-18 14:24 +0000
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 06:44 -0800
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 06:50 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 11:07 -0500
          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-18 12:22 -0500
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 09:39 -0800
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-18 20:22 +0000
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 17:04 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-18 22:45 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-18 18:02 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 00:04 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 19:20 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 00:59 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 20:13 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 01:36 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 21:12 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 11:20 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-19 11:09 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 18:25 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-19 14:02 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 21:55 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-19 17:50 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-19 23:05 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 18:16 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-20 08:14 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 08:33 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 23:38 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-20 08:19 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-20 15:28 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-20 13:25 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 22:22 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-20 22:26 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-21 00:16 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-21 01:05 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-20 13:24 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-20 18:54 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 22:31 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-20 20:38 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-21 12:00 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-21 18:30 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-21 13:51 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-21 19:47 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-21 20:21 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-21 21:25 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-21 23:02 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-22 11:56 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-22 15:01 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-22 18:43 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-21 23:58 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-22 14:37 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-22 17:12 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-21 16:47 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-22 01:23 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-22 08:19 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-22 15:34 +1300
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-22 04:18 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-22 17:31 +1300
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-22 14:18 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-22 09:28 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-22 14:10 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2012-11-28 01:12 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-28 09:50 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-22 11:43 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-22 11:34 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-22 09:57 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-22 18:47 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-22 11:39 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 14:08 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-19 21:32 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 16:35 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 21:51 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 18:38 -0500
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-19 14:05 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 21:25 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-20 12:21 -0500
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-19 13:57 -0500
  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-18 03:47 -0800
  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 10:56 -0500
    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 09:11 -0800
      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-18 15:10 -0500
        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 12:52 -0800
          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 21:29 +0000
          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> - 2012-11-18 22:35 +0100
          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-18 17:00 -0500
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-19 14:38 +1300
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 21:14 -0500
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-19 03:56 +0000
          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-18 22:06 +0000
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-18 23:44 +0000
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 01:16 +0000
          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-18 14:20 -0800
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 15:33 -0800
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 01:21 -0800
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 01:45 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 11:35 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 05:01 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-19 15:37 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 08:21 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 05:42 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 06:06 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 10:02 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 08:51 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-19 21:35 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 09:06 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 14:25 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-19 11:42 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 09:06 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 12:31 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 09:42 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 13:36 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-19 11:57 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 15:07 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-19 15:21 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 15:37 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Greg Martin <greg@softsprocket.com> - 2012-11-19 11:10 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 11:22 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 14:41 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Greg Martin <greg@softsprocket.com> - 2012-11-19 12:04 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-20 12:08 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 11:37 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 15:33 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 21:14 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 16:39 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-20 13:57 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 17:01 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-21 11:07 +1300
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 17:23 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 14:46 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Greg Martin <greg@softsprocket.com> - 2012-11-20 14:56 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 15:10 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Greg Martin <greg@softsprocket.com> - 2012-11-20 15:26 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 16:00 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-21 12:10 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-21 09:45 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-21 13:43 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rosario1903 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2012-11-22 10:25 +0100
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-21 12:08 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> - 2012-11-21 16:42 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-22 10:49 +1300
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-21 15:55 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 14:58 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-21 11:49 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-21 11:12 +1300
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 22:41 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-19 15:46 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-19 16:39 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-19 16:33 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-20 00:20 -0600
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-19 22:12 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-20 00:34 -0600
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 10:20 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 13:40 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-19 22:00 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 17:49 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 11:05 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-19 21:48 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-19 17:58 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-19 23:16 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-19 16:39 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 01:28 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-20 08:22 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 19:01 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 23:50 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 23:18 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 23:28 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-20 10:53 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 03:19 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 03:39 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-20 12:52 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 04:59 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-20 15:47 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 11:21 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 16:11 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 19:18 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 02:51 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-12-14 23:28 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-17 12:37 +0200
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-12-17 06:00 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-17 23:43 +0200
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-12-17 19:23 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-12-18 13:31 +1300
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-12-17 20:17 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-18 00:48 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-12-18 15:38 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-12-16 10:50 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-12-16 10:58 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-12-16 16:47 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 14:17 +0000
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 00:38 -0800
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 02:34 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-11-20 07:38 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 04:47 -0800
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-20 13:14 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 21:27 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 16:48 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-20 16:28 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-21 10:29 +1300
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-20 22:32 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 18:14 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-21 01:52 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 22:31 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-21 04:40 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-21 08:11 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-20 14:02 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 15:29 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 16:54 -0800
        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 gof@somewhere.invalid (Adam Wysocki) - 2012-11-20 15:51 +0000
      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 21:26 +0000
  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-11-18 10:57 -0800
  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-18 13:44 -0800
    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2012-11-18 23:38 -0500
      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-12-14 23:13 -0500
  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Stanley Rice <heconghui@gmail.com> - 2012-11-27 17:22 -0800

csiph-web