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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #6872 > unrolled thread

Should you free your pointers?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Should you free your pointers? Billy Mays <noway@nohow.com> - 2011-06-24 16:41 -0400
    Re: Should you free your pointers? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-24 16:51 -0400
      Re: Should you free your pointers? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-24 16:56 -0400
      Re: Should you free your pointers? falk@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) - 2011-06-26 04:09 +0000
    Re: Should you free your pointers? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-24 21:53 +0100
      Re: Should you free your pointers? Martin Ambuhl <mambuhl@earthlink.net> - 2011-06-24 19:06 -0400
    Re: Should you free your pointers? Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-06-24 14:05 -0700
      Re: Should you free your pointers? David Mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 09:36 -0700
    Re: Should you free your pointers? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-25 09:31 +1200
    Re: Should you free your pointers? Martin Ambuhl <mambuhl@earthlink.net> - 2011-06-24 19:04 -0400
    Re: Should you free your pointers? Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-24 21:19 -0400
      Re: Should you free your pointers? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-25 15:15 -0700
        Re: Should you free your pointers? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-25 15:44 -0700
          Re: Should you free your pointers? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-26 12:56 -0700
            Re: Should you free your pointers? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-26 13:08 -0700
              Re: Should you free your pointers? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-06-26 14:33 -0700
              Re: Should you free your pointers? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-26 16:27 -0700
          Re: Should you free your pointers? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-26 19:39 -0400
            Re: Should you free your pointers? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-26 19:28 -0700
              Re: Should you free your pointers? James Waldby <not@valid.invalid> - 2011-06-27 05:42 +0000
              Re: Should you free your pointers? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-27 12:59 -0700
                Re: Should you free your pointers? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-27 13:06 -0700
                Re: Should you free your pointers? Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-27 20:26 +0000
                Re: Should you free your pointers? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-27 14:28 -0600
                Re: Should you free your pointers? pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-06-27 23:29 +0000
                Re: Should you free your pointers? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-06-27 21:08 -0400
                Re: Should you free your pointers? "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-06-28 04:05 +0100
                  Re: Should you free your pointers? Billy Mays <noway@nohow.com> - 2011-06-28 00:25 -0400
                    Re: Should you free your pointers? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-28 01:23 -0700
                  Re: Should you free your pointers? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 01:00 -0500
                  Re: Should you free your pointers? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-28 01:22 -0700
                    Re: Should you free your pointers? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-28 10:02 -0600
                    Re: Should you free your pointers? "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-06-29 02:41 +0100
                      Re: Should you free your pointers? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-28 19:47 -0600
                Re: Should you free your pointers? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-28 08:21 -0400
                  Re: Should you free your pointers? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-30 15:43 -0700
                Re: Should you free your pointers? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-28 22:36 -0700
    Re: Should you free your pointers? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-24 22:07 -0400
      Re: Should you free your pointers? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-25 15:27 +0100
    Re: Should you free your pointers? China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-27 18:16 -0700
    Re: Should you free your pointers? DDD <1983ddd@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 19:41 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#7092

In article <lnwrg89ff1.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:

> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> > On 06/25/2011 06:44 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> >> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:
> >>> In article <iu3d2t$qlh$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>>  Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote:
> > ...
> >>>>      This is Question 7.24 on the comp.lang.c Frequently Asked
> >>>> Questions (FAQ) page at <http://www.c-faq.com/>.
> >>>
> >>> FAQ was once frequently answered questions.
> >> 
> >> Um, it still is.
> >
> > I presume that he's commenting on the difference between "Asked" and
> > "Answered".
> 
> I must admit I didn't notice that he changed the word from "asked" to
> "answered".
> 
> Now that I've noticed, I'm not sure I've ever seen FAQ expanded
> to "Frequently Answered Questions" rather than "Frequently Asked
> Questions", and I still have no idea what Michael is getting at.
> Is he suggesting that Eric should have done something other than
> cite the FAQ?
> 
> Sorry if I'm being dense.

Originally FAQ stood for frequently answered questions.
Most people do not seem to know that, even more than 
I thought going in. During the transition, some people
attempted to stem the tide.

-- 
Michael Press

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7093

In article <rubrum-2DD50E.12594227062011@news.albasani.net>,
 Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <lnwrg89ff1.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
>  Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> 
> > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> > > On 06/25/2011 06:44 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> > >> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:
> > >>> In article <iu3d2t$qlh$1@dont-email.me>,
> > >>>  Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote:
> > > ...
> > >>>>      This is Question 7.24 on the comp.lang.c Frequently Asked
> > >>>> Questions (FAQ) page at <http://www.c-faq.com/>.
> > >>>
> > >>> FAQ was once frequently answered questions.
> > >> 
> > >> Um, it still is.
> > >
> > > I presume that he's commenting on the difference between "Asked" and
> > > "Answered".
> > 
> > I must admit I didn't notice that he changed the word from "asked" to
> > "answered".
> > 
> > Now that I've noticed, I'm not sure I've ever seen FAQ expanded
> > to "Frequently Answered Questions" rather than "Frequently Asked
> > Questions", and I still have no idea what Michael is getting at.
> > Is he suggesting that Eric should have done something other than
> > cite the FAQ?
> > 
> > Sorry if I'm being dense.
> 
> Originally FAQ stood for frequently answered questions.
> Most people do not seem to know that, even more than 
> I thought going in. During the transition, some people
> attempted to stem the tide.

A web search for "frequently answered questions"
finds a myriad of sites where the list of frequently
answered questions is titled "Frequently Answered Questions."

-- 
Michael Press

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7097

On 2011-06-27, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Originally FAQ stood for frequently answered questions.

Huh!  Before my time, I guess.

I would argue that given the existence of a FAQ, most questions on it
are much more frequently asked than answered.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7098

Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:

> In article <lnwrg89ff1.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
>  Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>
>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
>> > On 06/25/2011 06:44 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> >> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:
>> >>> In article <iu3d2t$qlh$1@dont-email.me>,
>> >>>  Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote:
>> > ...
>> >>>>      This is Question 7.24 on the comp.lang.c Frequently Asked
>> >>>> Questions (FAQ) page at <http://www.c-faq.com/>.
>> >>>
>> >>> FAQ was once frequently answered questions.
>> >> 
>> >> Um, it still is.
>> >
>> > I presume that he's commenting on the difference between "Asked" and
>> > "Answered".
>> 
>> I must admit I didn't notice that he changed the word from "asked" to
>> "answered".
>> 
>> Now that I've noticed, I'm not sure I've ever seen FAQ expanded
>> to "Frequently Answered Questions" rather than "Frequently Asked
>> Questions", and I still have no idea what Michael is getting at.
>> Is he suggesting that Eric should have done something other than
>> cite the FAQ?
>> 
>> Sorry if I'm being dense.
>
> Originally FAQ stood for frequently answered questions.
> Most people do not seem to know that, even more than 
> I thought going in. During the transition, some people
> attempted to stem the tide.

FWIW, it's been "Asked" for as long as I can remember (and I was on
usenet by 1980).  Checking, the jargon file has "Asked".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7112

In article <rubrum-2DD50E.12594227062011@news.albasani.net>,
Michael Press  <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>Originally FAQ stood for frequently answered questions.
>Most people do not seem to know that, even more than 
>I thought going in. During the transition, some people
>attempted to stem the tide.

I don't remember that, but I do remember "FAQ" being singular, and a regular
posting containing FAQs and answers being called a "FAQL" (FAQ List). I'm not
sure when that died out.

-- 
Alan Curry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7113

Michael Press wrote:
 
> Originally FAQ stood for frequently answered questions.
> Most people do not seem to know that, even more than
> I thought going in. During the transition, some people
> attempted to stem the tide.

I am one of those "Most people".
I have always known FAQ to mean Frequently Asked Questions.

-- 
pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7119

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <lnwrg89ff1.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
>  Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> 
>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
>>> On 06/25/2011 06:44 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:
>>>>> In article <iu3d2t$qlh$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>  Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>>>      This is Question 7.24 on the comp.lang.c Frequently Asked
>>>>>> Questions (FAQ) page at <http://www.c-faq.com/>.
>>>>> FAQ was once frequently answered questions.
>>>> Um, it still is.
>>> I presume that he's commenting on the difference between "Asked" and
>>> "Answered".
>> I must admit I didn't notice that he changed the word from "asked" to
>> "answered".
>>
>> Now that I've noticed, I'm not sure I've ever seen FAQ expanded
>> to "Frequently Answered Questions" rather than "Frequently Asked
>> Questions", and I still have no idea what Michael is getting at.
>> Is he suggesting that Eric should have done something other than
>> cite the FAQ?
>>
>> Sorry if I'm being dense.
> 
> Originally FAQ stood for frequently answered questions.
> Most people do not seem to know that, even more than 
> I thought going in. During the transition, some people
> attempted to stem the tide.

Evidence please. I've known it to be an abbreviation of "Frequently 
Asked Questions" for several decades, this is the first time I've seen a 
suggestion that it is "Frequently Answered Questions".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7120

On 6/27/2011 11:05 PM, J. J. Farrell wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>> In article <lnwrg89ff1.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
>> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>>
>>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
>>>> On 06/25/2011 06:44 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:
>>>>>> In article <iu3d2t$qlh$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>> Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>>> This is Question 7.24 on the comp.lang.c Frequently Asked
>>>>>>> Questions (FAQ) page at <http://www.c-faq.com/>.
>>>>>> FAQ was once frequently answered questions.
>>>>> Um, it still is.
>>>> I presume that he's commenting on the difference between "Asked" and
>>>> "Answered".
>>> I must admit I didn't notice that he changed the word from "asked" to
>>> "answered".
>>>
>>> Now that I've noticed, I'm not sure I've ever seen FAQ expanded
>>> to "Frequently Answered Questions" rather than "Frequently Asked
>>> Questions", and I still have no idea what Michael is getting at.
>>> Is he suggesting that Eric should have done something other than
>>> cite the FAQ?
>>>
>>> Sorry if I'm being dense.
>>
>> Originally FAQ stood for frequently answered questions.
>> Most people do not seem to know that, even more than I thought going
>> in. During the transition, some people
>> attempted to stem the tide.
>
> Evidence please. I've known it to be an abbreviation of "Frequently
> Asked Questions" for several decades, this is the first time I've seen a
> suggestion that it is "Frequently Answered Questions".

I think "Asked" fits better since the complement would be Infrequently 
Asked Questions rather than Frequently Unanswered Questions.

--
Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7128

In article <iubl3b$d6o$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
 Billy Mays <noway@nohow.com> wrote:

> On 6/27/2011 11:05 PM, J. J. Farrell wrote:
> > Michael Press wrote:
> >> In article <lnwrg89ff1.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
> >> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> >>>> On 06/25/2011 06:44 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> >>>>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:
> >>>>>> In article <iu3d2t$qlh$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>>> Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>>>>> This is Question 7.24 on the comp.lang.c Frequently Asked
> >>>>>>> Questions (FAQ) page at <http://www.c-faq.com/>.
> >>>>>> FAQ was once frequently answered questions.
> >>>>> Um, it still is.
> >>>> I presume that he's commenting on the difference between "Asked" and
> >>>> "Answered".
> >>> I must admit I didn't notice that he changed the word from "asked" to
> >>> "answered".
> >>>
> >>> Now that I've noticed, I'm not sure I've ever seen FAQ expanded
> >>> to "Frequently Answered Questions" rather than "Frequently Asked
> >>> Questions", and I still have no idea what Michael is getting at.
> >>> Is he suggesting that Eric should have done something other than
> >>> cite the FAQ?
> >>>
> >>> Sorry if I'm being dense.
> >>
> >> Originally FAQ stood for frequently answered questions.
> >> Most people do not seem to know that, even more than I thought going
> >> in. During the transition, some people
> >> attempted to stem the tide.
> >
> > Evidence please. I've known it to be an abbreviation of "Frequently
> > Asked Questions" for several decades, this is the first time I've seen a
> > suggestion that it is "Frequently Answered Questions".
> 
> I think "Asked" fits better since the complement would be Infrequently 
> Asked Questions rather than Frequently Unanswered Questions.

There are frequently asked questions that 
never get into the FAQL such as 

"Are you serious?"
"What's your point?"
"Is it congenital or were you dropped on your head?"

-- 
Michael Press

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7122

On 6/27/2011 10:05 PM, J. J. Farrell wrote:
>
> Evidence please. I've known it to be an abbreviation of "Frequently
> Asked Questions" for several decades, this is the first time I've seen a
> suggestion that it is "Frequently Answered Questions".

For what it's worth, Mr. J. de Boyne Pollard prefers "Frequently Given 
Answers"[1].  I can't say if that's at all relevant.

[1] http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7127

In article <iubgdq$meo$2@dont-email.me>,
 "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <lnwrg89ff1.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
> >  Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> >>> On 06/25/2011 06:44 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> >>>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:
> >>>>> In article <iu3d2t$qlh$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>>  Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>>>>      This is Question 7.24 on the comp.lang.c Frequently Asked
> >>>>>> Questions (FAQ) page at <http://www.c-faq.com/>.
> >>>>> FAQ was once frequently answered questions.
> >>>> Um, it still is.
> >>> I presume that he's commenting on the difference between "Asked" and
> >>> "Answered".
> >> I must admit I didn't notice that he changed the word from "asked" to
> >> "answered".
> >>
> >> Now that I've noticed, I'm not sure I've ever seen FAQ expanded
> >> to "Frequently Answered Questions" rather than "Frequently Asked
> >> Questions", and I still have no idea what Michael is getting at.
> >> Is he suggesting that Eric should have done something other than
> >> cite the FAQ?
> >>
> >> Sorry if I'm being dense.
> > 
> > Originally FAQ stood for frequently answered questions.
> > Most people do not seem to know that, even more than 
> > I thought going in. During the transition, some people
> > attempted to stem the tide.
> 
> Evidence please. I've known it to be an abbreviation of "Frequently 
> Asked Questions" for several decades, this is the first time I've seen a 
> suggestion that it is "Frequently Answered Questions".

The Wikipedia article on FAQ documents this usage. 

A web search for "frequently answered questions"
turns up a myriad of sites where the list of frequently
answered questions is titled "Frequently Answered Questions."

-- 
Michael Press

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7145

Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:

> In article <iubgdq$meo$2@dont-email.me>,
>  "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>> > In article <lnwrg89ff1.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
>> >  Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
>> >>> On 06/25/2011 06:44 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> >>>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:
>> >>>>> In article <iu3d2t$qlh$1@dont-email.me>,
>> >>>>>  Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote:
>> >>> ...
>> >>>>>>      This is Question 7.24 on the comp.lang.c Frequently Asked
>> >>>>>> Questions (FAQ) page at <http://www.c-faq.com/>.
>> >>>>> FAQ was once frequently answered questions.
>> >>>> Um, it still is.
>> >>> I presume that he's commenting on the difference between "Asked" and
>> >>> "Answered".
>> >> I must admit I didn't notice that he changed the word from "asked" to
>> >> "answered".
>> >>
>> >> Now that I've noticed, I'm not sure I've ever seen FAQ expanded
>> >> to "Frequently Answered Questions" rather than "Frequently Asked
>> >> Questions", and I still have no idea what Michael is getting at.
>> >> Is he suggesting that Eric should have done something other than
>> >> cite the FAQ?
>> >>
>> >> Sorry if I'm being dense.
>> > 
>> > Originally FAQ stood for frequently answered questions.
>> > Most people do not seem to know that, even more than 
>> > I thought going in. During the transition, some people
>> > attempted to stem the tide.
>> 
>> Evidence please. I've known it to be an abbreviation of "Frequently 
>> Asked Questions" for several decades, this is the first time I've seen a 
>> suggestion that it is "Frequently Answered Questions".
>
> The Wikipedia article on FAQ documents this usage. 
>
> A web search for "frequently answered questions"
> turns up a myriad of sites where the list of frequently
> answered questions is titled "Frequently Answered Questions."

Hmmm....  googling frequently answered questions turns up 5,190,000
hits -- and the first one is a page titled "Frequently Questioned
Answers".

frequently asked questions turns up 222,000,000 hits.

Of course, the claim is that FAQ originally stood for "answered", so
relative use now is pretty much irrelevant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7179

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <iubgdq$meo$2@dont-email.me>,
>  "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> wrote:
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> Originally FAQ stood for frequently answered questions.
>>> Most people do not seem to know that, even more than 
>>> I thought going in. During the transition, some people
>>> attempted to stem the tide.
>> Evidence please. I've known it to be an abbreviation of "Frequently 
>> Asked Questions" for several decades, this is the first time I've seen a 
>> suggestion that it is "Frequently Answered Questions".
> 
> The Wikipedia article on FAQ documents this usage.

Not quite - it claims "Originally the term FAQ referred to the 
Frequently Answered Question itself", but with no citation of any sort 
to support the claim, and without even identifying the claimant.

Wikipedia does attribute the origin of the acronym FAQ to Eugene Maya on 
the SPACE mailing list, and http://www.islandone.org/SpaceDigest/ 
confirms that Maya originally used the term to mean Frequently Answered 
Questions. Since there are records of the term Frequently Asked 
Questions which pre-date that by some years, I'd be surprised if that 
really was the first time the acronym was used. Quite possible though.

The Wikipedia article doesn't say anything about people attempting to 
stem the tide in the supposed change of meaning - where do you get that 
from?

> A web search for "frequently answered questions"
> turns up a myriad of sites where the list of frequently
> answered questions is titled "Frequently Answered Questions."

A vastly smaller myriad than that turned up by searching for "frequently 
asked questions", neither of which points has any relevance to the 
question of which term was the originally intended by the FAQ abbreviation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7180

"J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> writes:

> Michael Press wrote:
>> In article <iubgdq$meo$2@dont-email.me>,
>>  "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>> Originally FAQ stood for frequently answered questions.
>>>> Most people do not seem to know that, even more than I thought
>>>> going in. During the transition, some people
>>>> attempted to stem the tide.
>>> Evidence please. I've known it to be an abbreviation of "Frequently
>>> Asked Questions" for several decades, this is the first time I've
>>> seen a suggestion that it is "Frequently Answered Questions".
>>
>> The Wikipedia article on FAQ documents this usage.
>
> Not quite - it claims "Originally the term FAQ referred to the
> Frequently Answered Question itself", but with no citation of any sort
> to support the claim, and without even identifying the claimant.
>
> Wikipedia does attribute the origin of the acronym FAQ to Eugene Maya
> on the SPACE mailing list, and http://www.islandone.org/SpaceDigest/
> confirms that Maya originally used the term to mean Frequently
> Answered Questions. Since there are records of the term Frequently
> Asked Questions which pre-date that by some years, I'd be surprised if
> that really was the first time the acronym was used. Quite possible
> though.
>
> The Wikipedia article doesn't say anything about people attempting to
> stem the tide in the supposed change of meaning - where do you get
> that from?

<snip>

Now, *this* is how one attacks a wikipedia article:  not by making a
blanket "wikipedia is unreliable" statment, but by pointing to flaws in
the article's attributions, by pointing out that the article doesn't
quite say what was claimed, and by pointing to better evidence from
elsewhere.

In other words, the way any other argument should be attacked.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7136

On 06/27/2011 03:59 PM, Michael Press wrote:
...
> Originally FAQ stood for frequently answered questions.
> Most people do not seem to know that, even more than 
> I thought going in. During the transition, some people
> attempted to stem the tide.

According to Google Groups, the oldest usenet message containing
"Frequently Answered Questions" was dated 1989-03-22. It could only find
14 such messages between then and 1991-01-1.

The oldest message it reports containing the phrase "Frequently Asked
Questions" dates back to 1981-07-13, and there are 11,200 such messages
between then and 1984-01-01. The very first such message connects that
phrase to the acronym "FAQ", contradicting the chronology given for the
birth of that acronym in Wikipedia's entry for "FAQ".

Google Groups' query engine is extremely flaky, but these numbers and
dates are at least suggestive of a different history than the one you
describe.
-- 
James Kuyper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7328

In article <iucgvd$c8f$1@dont-email.me>,
 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:

> On 06/27/2011 03:59 PM, Michael Press wrote:
> ...
> > Originally FAQ stood for frequently answered questions.
> > Most people do not seem to know that, even more than 
> > I thought going in. During the transition, some people
> > attempted to stem the tide.
> 
> According to Google Groups, the oldest usenet message containing
> "Frequently Answered Questions" was dated 1989-03-22. It could only find
> 14 such messages between then and 1991-01-1.
> 
> The oldest message it reports containing the phrase "Frequently Asked
> Questions" dates back to 1981-07-13, and there are 11,200 such messages
> between then and 1984-01-01. The very first such message connects that
> phrase to the acronym "FAQ", contradicting the chronology given for the
> birth of that acronym in Wikipedia's entry for "FAQ".
> 
> Google Groups' query engine is extremely flaky, but these numbers and
> dates are at least suggestive of a different history than the one you
> describe.

Yes, so they are.

-- 
Michael Press

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7186

Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:
> In article <lnwrg89ff1.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
>  Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
>> > On 06/25/2011 06:44 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> >> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:
>> >>> In article <iu3d2t$qlh$1@dont-email.me>,
>> >>>  Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote:
>> > ...
>> >>>>      This is Question 7.24 on the comp.lang.c Frequently Asked
>> >>>> Questions (FAQ) page at <http://www.c-faq.com/>.
>> >>>
>> >>> FAQ was once frequently answered questions.
>> >> 
>> >> Um, it still is.
>> >
>> > I presume that he's commenting on the difference between "Asked" and
>> > "Answered".
>> 
>> I must admit I didn't notice that he changed the word from "asked" to
>> "answered".
>> 
>> Now that I've noticed, I'm not sure I've ever seen FAQ expanded
>> to "Frequently Answered Questions" rather than "Frequently Asked
>> Questions", and I still have no idea what Michael is getting at.
>> Is he suggesting that Eric should have done something other than
>> cite the FAQ?
>> 
>> Sorry if I'm being dense.
>
> Originally FAQ stood for frequently answered questions.
> Most people do not seem to know that, even more than 
> I thought going in. During the transition, some people
> attempted to stem the tide.

Ok, I understand that you're saying that "FAQ" originally stood for
"Frequently Answered Questions".  It's not clear whether that's
accurate or not.  But whether you're right about that or not,
exactly what point were you trying to make?  Does it really matter
whether the 'A' stands for "Asked" or "Answered"?

Eric replied to a question by citing <http://www.c-faq.com/>.
The context implied to me that you were criticizing what Eric did.
Was that your intent?  If so, what should he have done?  Or was
your point entirely about what the 'A' stands for?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6913

On 06/24/2011 04:41 PM, Billy Mays wrote:
> In the case where you know that your program will be terminating after 
> it is done using the pointers, should you even bother freeing the space up?
> 
> Example:
> int main(void)
> {
>      int i, * data;
>      data = malloc(sizeof(int) * 100);
>      if(data) {
>          for(i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
>              data[i] = i'
>          }
>      }
>      /* free(data) ? */
>      return 0;
> }

It's not necessary, but I think it's easier to not make a special case
of main(); the rules for creating well-written code are easier to
remember if they don't have more special cases than they have to.

Also, there's always the possibility that code from main() may someday
get moved off to another function; if that code already contains
properly connected malloc() and free() calls, that's one less thing to
worry about during the move.
-- 
James Kuyper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6926

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 22:07:46 -0400, James Kuyper wrote:

>> In the case where you know that your program will be terminating after 
>> it is done using the pointers, should you even bother freeing the space up?

> It's not necessary, but I think it's easier to not make a special case
> of main(); the rules for creating well-written code are easier to
> remember if they don't have more special cases than they have to.

Sometimes, explicitly freeing memory requires added complexity in order
to keep track of what needs to be freed. E.g. if you have linked data
structures where you could have multiple pointers to a single block of
memory, you have to take steps to avoid multiple free()s of a single
block. Similarly if pointers can be to either static or dynamic data.

Adding such complexity is especially pointless if it only comes into play
upon termination, e.g. if you have complex structures which must exist in
order for the program to perform its normal function.

> Also, there's always the possibility that code from main() may someday
> get moved off to another function; if that code already contains
> properly connected malloc() and free() calls, that's one less thing to
> worry about during the move.

If the structure of the code is such that "pairing" malloc and free makes
sense, I'll do it. But in that case, I may set __free_hook (glibc) or
similar to point to an empty function once termination is assured. This
also deals with external libraries which typically have to free()
everything upon finalisation to be on the safe side.

Meticulously free()ing memory when you know that the program is about to
terminate is like rearranging the deckchairs as the Titanic is sinking.
Such operations can often take far longer than is immediately apparent, as
you often end up walking through memory which has long since been swapped
out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7114

In article <iu2sov$3dv$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Billy Mays <noway@nohow.com> 
wrote:

> In the case where you know that your program will be terminating after 
> it is done using the pointers, should you even bother freeing the space up?

It's a good idea to be able to free everything, regardless of whether you do so. 
If in the future you want to transform your program into a function for a larger 
function, you will be glad if you can release the function's resources.

-- 
I remember finding out about you,  |A free Thai dyed shirt in every box.
Everyday my mind is all around you,|      I'm whoever you want me to be.
Looking out from my lonely room    | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Day after day.                     |   At least I can stay in character.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web