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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #28498

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 11:12:12 +1300
Lines 31
Message-ID <ah2dhsFsvchU5@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References <691430a0-0d95-40ac-8ca4-5ceab7db74db@googlegroups.com> <Kjrqs.598619$Ol2.116998@fx25.am4> <k8dnh9$pot$1@dont-email.me> <503b634f-6d7d-433a-aa57-c8c416048ce6@googlegroups.com> <50AA6CE8.7010603@verizon.net> <ef1d81a0-c0a6-4f91-b9b3-25e321905121@googlegroups.com> <Euvqs.51610$Be.19025@newsfe13.iad> <a9a31d64-b310-4cfe-a890-c1766bd715ee@googlegroups.com> <0rWdnfA1_ohrJTbNnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@bestweb.net> <44e4c552-5170-47c3-9e7b-634c038a88e2@googlegroups.com> <50ABE92B.1050202@verizon.net> <k8grr5$qdu$1@speranza.aioe.org> <50ABF89C.4070302@verizon.net> <lnzk2clyyy.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 dycXIORCi+X/Si3AoQQMTgEA/Ns1bYk+m/Od8swCWO/TtSll+MXwK6iGTPeMko7jOI
Cancel-Lock sha1:lh8tdJG9Ey3ZOsNt1M05faX01NA=
User-Agent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; SunOS i86pc; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120423 Thunderbird/12.0
In-Reply-To <lnzk2clyyy.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
Xref csiph.com comp.lang.c:28498

Show key headers only | View raw

On 11/21/12 10:57, Keith Thompson wrote:
> James Kuyper<jameskuyper@verizon.net>  writes:
>> On 11/20/2012 04:14 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>> ...
>>> Note that Fortran allows one to specify either a numeric or
>>> string value on the STOP statement. That hasn't stopped implementations
>>> on systems that didn't support string status values.
>>
>> Yes, and the Fortran specifies what it does with that string: it
>> displays it, rather than attempting to pass it as an exit status. I've
>> repeatedly asked fir to specify what he wanted done with the string
>> after it was returned, with no response. If he had said "print it to
>> stderr", that would be perfectly reasonable; but if so, he still needs
>> to specify what exit status should be returned, since he's hijacked what
>> used to be the only way of specifying that status.
>
> Given that C already has perfectly good mechanisms for printing
> messages to stderr, there's no point at all in changing the
> definitions of main() and exit() to do the same thing.
>
> There's nothing wrong with having a convenience function that prints
> a message and terminates the program, but there's no need to define
> such a function in the language.

It is also straightforward to run an application from another (or a 
shell) that captures stderr and returns error message to the caller.  I 
do this in my own extended version of POSIX popen.  So I agree, the 
mechanism already exists in standard C.

-- 
Ian Collins

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

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