Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #7572 > unrolled thread
| Started by | David Remacle <listes@NOSpamclampin.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-07-04 07:31 +0000 |
| Last post | 2011-07-06 16:07 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 197 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
C is fixed or not ? David Remacle <listes@NOSpamclampin.com> - 2011-07-04 07:31 +0000
Re: C is fixed or not ? China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 00:46 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:03 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 21:17 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 16:59 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-04 09:06 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:05 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-06 08:12 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 17:02 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> - 2011-07-04 10:17 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-07-04 11:37 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-04 11:31 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-04 08:01 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-07-04 17:29 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-04 12:01 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-04 19:20 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-05 07:53 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-04 22:39 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-05 15:33 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:32 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:28 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-05 07:29 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 17:17 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 03:37 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 17:21 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-06 00:09 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 07:59 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-05 23:52 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-06 11:20 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-06 09:30 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 08:16 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2011-07-07 11:13 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-07 17:23 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jameskuyper <jameskuyper@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 08:11 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 03:21 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-05 19:41 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 04:15 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-05 23:42 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 08:44 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 15:00 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-06 23:22 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:23 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-06 11:32 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 10:27 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 19:41 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-07 00:19 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-07 09:24 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-10 16:27 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 00:21 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 23:20 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 00:04 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:52 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 23:47 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 01:59 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-07 00:22 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 15:25 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 08:01 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:59 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:57 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-10 16:03 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-11 08:19 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-12 00:31 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-12 19:39 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-12 06:06 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-12 22:14 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 19:11 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:49 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-06 17:05 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-07 00:27 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-07 06:39 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-07 12:45 +0200
POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows (was: C is fixed or not ?) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-07-07 15:17 +0200
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-07-07 11:21 -0700
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 08:07 +1200
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 16:01 -0500
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 21:12 -0500
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 23:33 -0500
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 23:49 -0500
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-03 07:32 -0700
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-07-07 15:06 -0700
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-10 16:08 -0400
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-07-10 16:09 -0700
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-11 06:20 -0400
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-11 22:36 +1200
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-07-11 16:18 +0000
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows (was: C is fixed or not ?) Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 19:01 -0700
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows (was: C is fixed or not ?) "Ersek, Laszlo" <lacos@caesar.elte.hu> - 2011-07-14 23:05 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 15:30 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-07 11:00 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 13:30 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 21:30 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 02:34 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 01:35 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-12 22:30 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-07-10 01:31 +0100
Windows Posix Support (was Re: C is fixed or not ?) Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-07-10 01:06 +0000
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 01:25 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-12 22:50 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-13 17:27 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 03:00 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:35 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-06 17:24 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-07 07:02 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-06 14:46 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 04:04 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-07-06 09:25 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:20 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-05 07:33 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 17:49 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? jameskuyper <jameskuyper@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 14:47 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 03:11 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-06 14:26 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 04:00 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-06 15:22 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 14:36 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 07:56 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 02:15 +0300
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 15:31 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-05 23:29 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 14:34 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:00 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 13:20 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-08 10:47 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 11:07 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-08 14:56 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-13 07:50 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-14 21:00 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-15 14:29 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-14 22:58 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-15 11:31 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 21:49 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-16 15:00 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 23:08 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-16 16:23 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 23:50 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-16 17:13 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 00:26 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 08:23 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 03:35 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 10:17 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 10:21 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 04:39 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 12:22 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 16:14 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-17 08:01 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-16 13:48 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 23:56 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-17 13:48 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-18 06:32 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-19 01:14 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-15 00:50 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 22:44 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-15 20:58 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 23:09 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 08:24 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 03:38 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 10:17 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-07-16 11:46 +0000
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-16 14:53 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 23:58 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-18 02:47 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-18 06:41 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-18 02:46 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-18 06:46 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-15 01:24 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 21:49 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 12:47 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-08 17:44 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Oliver Jackson <chexmofo@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-09 00:46 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 08:33 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-06 20:10 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 14:35 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-06 11:45 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 19:35 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 21:10 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 21:44 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 07:58 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-06 15:59 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 17:39 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 08:03 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 17:16 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 21:39 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 12:42 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-08 15:19 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-08 17:46 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-07-04 17:35 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-06 08:26 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-07 19:52 +0300
Re: C is fixed or not ? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-05 08:09 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-07-05 16:04 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:07 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-06 17:11 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-07 16:29 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 08:09 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-04 14:35 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:01 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-06 16:07 +0100
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 23:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iuu454$3mq$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7603 |
jacob navia wrote: > Le 04/07/11 21:53, Ian Collins a écrit : >> On 07/ 5/11 05:20 AM, jacob navia wrote: >>> >>> You say: >>> >>>> Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be one of >>>> the most popular requests in this forum... >>> >>> I do not remember ANYBODY asking for multi-threading support in >>> this forum for the pas 10 years or so, in any case as my >>> memory serves >> >> Well it has been one of the most requested new features in C++. >> Having native atomics built into the language will be a big win for >> both C and C++. >> >> Thanks to the speed of adoption of the soon to be released C++0x, the >> feature should have widespread support form vendors who provide both >> C and C++ compilers. >> > > OK, then, kif you want a change in the C standard you particiâte in > comp.lang.c++. What's the point of limiting one's creative possibilities to the C SUBSET of C++? I GET "simplicity". I also get TOO SIMPLE/INADEQUATE. You really need to have a defined audience for any such dialog. I do desktop/server apps in C++, call me crazy if you must, but I can foresee phones and such (other embedded actually) in my future. And I'm a SLOW (last?) ADOPTER! Once, there was the ubiquitous "C API" that was the glue for all else. That time is gone and is going away. > > Now I understand... Sounds "hissy-ish", FYI. > > NONE of the proposals discussed in cmp.std.c has made it into the > standard. Obviously we were in the wrong group
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 07:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iuu7gm$k3f$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #7645 |
Le 05/07/11 06:28, MikeP a écrit : > > What's the point of limiting one's creative possibilities to the C SUBSET > of C++? The point is that it is another distinct computer language that has several advantages from its bloated counterpart. I GET "simplicity". I also get TOO SIMPLE/INADEQUATE. Yes, that is why I am trying to preserve its simplicity without keeping its inadequacies. > You really > need to have a defined audience for any such dialog. C programmers > I do desktop/server > apps in C++, call me crazy if you must, but I can foresee phones and such > (other embedded actually) in my future. ell, I am programmming applications for the iphone in C99 and objective C. Both languages go very well together and yes there isn't any C++ that I can see. > And I'm a SLOW (last?) ADOPTER! Adopter of the wrong language. > Once, there was the ubiquitous "C API" that was the glue for all else. > That time is gone and is going away. > Excuse me but that will never go away. The C api is the only glue that can hold two C++ applicatons compiled with different compilers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 17:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iv5bir$uq2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7650 |
jacob navia wrote: > Le 05/07/11 06:28, MikeP a écrit : >> >> What's the point of limiting one's creative possibilities to the C >> SUBSET of C++? > > The point is that it is another distinct computer language that has > several advantages from its bloated counterpart. > > I GET "simplicity". I also get TOO SIMPLE/INADEQUATE. > > Yes, that is why I am trying to preserve its simplicity without > keeping its inadequacies. But its inadequacies are at the foundations, so, it can't be done. It's the old "same axe I've used for 30 years... had to replace the handle 3 times and the head twice" thing. If you keep either the handle or the head, you still have the inadequacy, if you replace both, you have something new. So you see, what you are proposing is indeed impossible. > >> You really >> need to have a defined audience for any such dialog. > > C programmers Who like their axes and don't want to become C++, D, E, F, G, C+-, C--, C+--C++... programmers? C + (--C++). Or is it C + (--(C++) that you are conjuring? > >> I do desktop/server >> apps in C++, call me crazy if you must, but I can foresee phones and >> such (other embedded actually) in my future. > > ell, I am programmming applications for the iphone in C99 and > objective C. Both languages go very well together and yes > there isn't any C++ that I can see. > > >> And I'm a SLOW (last?) ADOPTER! > > Adopter of the wrong language. > >> Once, there was the ubiquitous "C API" that was the glue for all >> else. That time is gone and is going away. >> > > Excuse me but that will never go away. The C api is the only glue > that can hold two C++ applicatons compiled with different compilers. Once there was C and C++, now there are many more languages that are useful, and moreso. C and C++ are niche languages now, though some of the oldtimers still use them outside of their increasingly smaller domains. (OK, that seems a bit futuristic in a C NG, that I grant you. But it will happen... maybe after you replace the handle and the head a few more times?).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 03:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e13cb9f$0$20927$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #7645 |
MikeP wrote: > What's the point of limiting one's creative possibilities to the C SUBSET > of C++? I GET "simplicity". I also get TOO SIMPLE/INADEQUATE. You really > need to have a defined audience for any such dialog. I do desktop/server > apps in C++, call me crazy if you must, but I can foresee phones and such > (other embedded actually) in my future. And I'm a SLOW (last?) ADOPTER! > Once, there was the ubiquitous "C API" that was the glue for all else. > That time is gone and is going away. Your comment sounds a bit like zealotry. Regarding the reference to «ubiquitous "C API"», one of the main reasons some APIs were mainly written in C is because linking to C code from any language is a relatively simple and easy task which is widely understood, and due to this feature the API providers avoided wasting time providing APIs for other languages. In comparisson, linking to C++ code from within any programming language is a daunting task. So, as you can see, the reason why C was frequently adopted for this particular task wasn't some irrational, fanboyish stance. There were and are very strong motives to do it this way. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 17:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iv5bis$uq2$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7689 |
Rui Maciel wrote: > MikeP wrote: > >> What's the point of limiting one's creative possibilities to the C >> SUBSET of C++? I GET "simplicity". I also get TOO SIMPLE/INADEQUATE. >> You really need to have a defined audience for any such dialog. I do >> desktop/server apps in C++, call me crazy if you must, but I can >> foresee phones and such (other embedded actually) in my future. And >> I'm a SLOW (last?) ADOPTER! Once, there was the ubiquitous "C API" >> that was the glue for all else. That time is gone and is going away. > > Your comment sounds a bit like zealotry. What would the alleged zealotry be for/about? > > Regarding the reference to «ubiquitous "C API"», one of the main > reasons some APIs were mainly written in C is because linking to C > code from any language is a relatively simple and easy task which is > widely understood, and due to this feature the API providers avoided > wasting time providing APIs for other languages. In comparisson, > linking to C++ code from within any programming language is a > daunting task. I was just noting that that was then, this is now. > > So, as you can see, the reason why C was frequently adopted for this > particular task wasn't some irrational, fanboyish stance. There were > and are very strong motives to do it this way. That was then, this is now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lawrence.jones@siemens.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 00:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ko3de8-3se.ln1@jones.homeip.net> |
| In reply to | #7603 |
jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote: > > NONE of the proposals discussed in cmp.std.c has made it into the > standard. Obviously we were in the wrong group Obviously. Strangely, none of the proposals I've made in alt.usage.english to change the English language have made it into the OED, either. -- Larry Jones Talk about someone easy to exploit! -- Calvin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 07:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iv0tj7$r0u$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #7706 |
Le 06/07/11 06:09, lawrence.jones@siemens.com a écrit : > jacob navia<jacob@spamsink.net> wrote: >> >> NONE of the proposals discussed in cmp.std.c has made it into the >> standard. Obviously we were in the wrong group > > Obviously. Strangely, none of the proposals I've made in > alt.usage.english to change the English language have made it into the > OED, either. Your arrogance is without limits. Go ahead
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 23:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnsjqj295m.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #7706 |
lawrence.jones@siemens.com writes:
> jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote:
>> NONE of the proposals discussed in cmp.std.c has made it into the
>> standard. Obviously we were in the wrong group
>
> Obviously. Strangely, none of the proposals I've made in
> alt.usage.english to change the English language have made it into the
> OED, either.
I'll just mention that
<http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/standards> says:
The public can submit proposed defect reports via the Internet news
group comp.std.c++
and that I personally would like comp.std.c to have a similar status
with the C committee.
--
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]
| From | lawrence.jones@siemens.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 11:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <e2bee8-aki.ln1@jones.homeip.net> |
| In reply to | #7735 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > > I'll just mention that > <http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/standards> says: > > The public can submit proposed defect reports via the Internet news > group comp.std.c++ > > and that I personally would like comp.std.c to have a similar status > with the C committee. That's a perfectly reasonable desire. However, the C committee decided a LONG time ago that the signal to noise ratio here is far too low for it to be a useful source of input. I don't frequent comp.std.c++ so I don't know if it's any better or not, but the C++ committee has a lot more resources than the C committee does. -- Larry Jones He just doesn't want to face up to the fact that I'll be the life of every party. -- Calvin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 09:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnoc171idl.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #7770 |
lawrence.jones@siemens.com writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>> I'll just mention that
>> <http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/standards> says:
>>
>> The public can submit proposed defect reports via the Internet news
>> group comp.std.c++
>>
>> and that I personally would like comp.std.c to have a similar status
>> with the C committee.
>
> That's a perfectly reasonable desire. However, the C committee decided
> a LONG time ago that the signal to noise ratio here is far too low for
> it to be a useful source of input. I don't frequent comp.std.c++ so I
> don't know if it's any better or not, but the C++ committee has a lot
> more resources than the C committee does.
Note that "here" is comp.lang.c, not comp.std.c. I find that
comp.std.c has a significantly better S/N ratio that comp.lang.c.
I understand that it may still be too noisy for the C committee to
deal with, but filtering out the noise isn't *that* difficult.
BTW, comp.std.c++ is moderated. I wonder whether a
comp.std.c.moderated newsgroup would be useful, though I wouldn't
want to create it without a prior commitment by the committee to
make use of it. (I haven't decide whether it would be a good idea
even then.)
--
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]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 08:16 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <97ju6fFbcvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #7770 |
On 07/ 7/11 03:20 AM, lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: > Keith Thompson<kst-u@mib.org> wrote: >> >> I'll just mention that >> <http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/standards> says: >> >> The public can submit proposed defect reports via the Internet news >> group comp.std.c++ >> >> and that I personally would like comp.std.c to have a similar status >> with the C committee. > > That's a perfectly reasonable desire. However, the C committee decided > a LONG time ago that the signal to noise ratio here is far too low for > it to be a useful source of input. I don't frequent comp.std.c++ so I > don't know if it's any better or not, but the C++ committee has a lot > more resources than the C committee does. I agree with Keith. comp.std.c is a very low noise group. I don't see anything there that wouldn't appear on a moderated group. It could be used as a valuable source of ideas and feedback. From what I've seen, compared to C the C++ standardisation process is more open and inclusive. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 11:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4E15CD35.7D877CEA@bytecraft.com> |
| In reply to | #7787 |
Ian Collins wrote: > On 07/ 7/11 03:20 AM, lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: > > Keith Thompson<kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > >> > >> The public can submit proposed defect reports via the Internet news > >> group comp.std.c++ > >> > >> and that I personally would like comp.std.c to have a similar status > >> with the C committee. > > > > That's a perfectly reasonable desire. However, the C committee decided > > a LONG time ago that the signal to noise ratio here is far too low for > > it to be a useful source of input. I don't frequent comp.std.c++ so I > > don't know if it's any better or not, but the C++ committee has a lot > > more resources than the C committee does. > > I agree with Keith. comp.std.c is a very low noise group. I don't see > anything there that wouldn't appear on a moderated group. It could be > used as a valuable source of ideas and feedback. > > From what I've seen, compared to C the C++ standardisation process is > more open and inclusive. It is not that there isn't good ideas in comp.std.c and comp.lang.c, there are. Part of the filtering process is determining if an idea is good enough for someone to commit themselves to detailing the specifics and defending it as part of a C committee meeting. This is not a barrier to good ideas and practices but a filter to minimize bad ones. Jacob and others who have presented proposals here are often upset that someone else has not come support to their ideas and technology. They may have better proposals but no-one is prepared to do the work (considerable work) on their behalf. It is like walking into a publishing house and saying I have a great book idea "Gone with the Waves" an adventure plotted between "Moby Dick" and "Gone with the Wind" attached is the notes I wrote last week. I am sure that one of your staff writers can fill in the details and create a manuscript in their spare time. w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 17:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iv4j0q$dop$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #7847 |
Le 07/07/11 17:13, Walter Banks a écrit : > > Jacob and others who have presented proposals here are often upset that > someone else has not come support to their ideas and technology. They > may have better proposals but no-one is prepared to do the work (considerable > work) on their behalf. > I have repeatedly said that I CAN'T go to another continent (or even within Europe) 3 or 4 times a year paying MYSELF the plane ticket, the 5 nights at the hotel and all the associated expenses. Obviously your company does better than mine and you can afford it (and many meetings are in the U.S. anyway so for you is much cheaper). I just CAN'T AFFORD IT. If the committee had a place where I could write my proposals and discuss it with them through email that would be enough. I have repeatedly said that I am ready to do that work. If you see (for instance) my work for the container library for C you will see that the doc is 300 pages and the source code is more than 20 thousand lines. The lcc-win compiler has an almost complete imlementation of C99 and I have been working in that project for more than 10 years. It is not the work that scares me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jameskuyper <jameskuyper@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 08:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1ab5e9a4-26e1-4b9d-9459-8fad0980b545@t9g2000vbs.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7848 |
jacob navia wrote: > Le 07/07/11 17:13, Walter Banks a �crit : > > > > Jacob and others who have presented proposals here are often upset that > > someone else has not come support to their ideas and technology. They > > may have better proposals but no-one is prepared to do the work (considerable > > work) on their behalf. > > > > I have repeatedly said that I CAN'T go to another continent > (or even within Europe) 3 or 4 times a year paying MYSELF > the plane ticket, the 5 nights at the hotel and all the > associated expenses. The requirement that you attend meetings applies only to voting members. I believer that all you need to submit proposals is non- voting membership. You don't even need membership, if you can convince someone who is a member that your proposal has sufficient merit to justify them submitting it on their behalf. The nasty things you've frequently said about the committee may make that a difficult route to follow. The key thing is that a lot of detailed work needs to be done checking for and dealing with interactions between the proposed change and other parts of the standard. Your proposals generally tend to be very weak in that area; too often, you claim incorrectly that there are no such interactions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 03:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e13c801$0$20925$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #7602 |
Ian Collins wrote: > Well it has been one of the most requested new features in C++. Having > native atomics built into the language will be a big win for both C and > C++. The case regarding C++ isn't comparable, because using pthreads with C++'s OO features forced the programmer to jump through loops, and there wasn't any standard way of handling threads "the C++ way". This isn't the case with C. Using pthreads in C doesn't constitute a problem. Adding to this, the pthreads API is already defined in an international standard for a good number of years. I understand the need to define some behavior which helps implement threading, but ignoring pre- existing standards while wasting time developing a redundant API... That doesn't make sense. > Thanks to the speed of adoption of the soon to be released C++0x, the > feature should have widespread support form vendors who provide both C > and C++ compilers. Then again, I'm not aware of a single C compiler which fails to support pthreads. So, in essence shoving threading into the new C standard will provide C programmers with nothing new besides the need to waste time relearning an API which they could already use for a good number of years. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 19:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnwrfw1679.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #7687 |
Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> Then again, I'm not aware of a single C compiler which fails to support
> pthreads. So, in essence shoving threading into the new C standard will
> provide C programmers with nothing new besides the need to waste time
> relearning an API which they could already use for a good number of years.
Can somebody who's familiar with both comment on how similar POSIX
threading and C201X threading are?
--
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]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 04:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e13d4a7$0$20921$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #7688 |
Keith Thompson wrote: > Can somebody who's familiar with both comment on how similar POSIX > threading and C201X threading are? The degree to which both APIs are similar and which features differ from each standard is irrelevant. If if is acceptable to cover this issue by developing from scratch a redundant definition as part of an update to an international standard then it is also acceptable to simply update the international standard which already covers this issue. The atomics definition, as it currently stands, basically consists of two sections divided in 12 pages: one covering the definition of an atomic type (less than 1 page) and the remaining covering the atomic's library. IIRC, pthreads doesn't cover atomic data types, but I don't see any reason why it can't cover them. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 23:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iv0ljc$fce$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7698 |
On 07/05/2011 11:15 PM, Rui Maciel wrote: > Keith Thompson wrote: > >> Can somebody who's familiar with both comment on how similar POSIX >> threading and C201X threading are? > > The degree to which both APIs are similar and which features differ from > each standard is irrelevant. Perhaps it's irrelevant to you; but it's of interest to me, particular insofar as I lack both sufficient experience with POSIX threads, and sufficient understanding of the C201X proposal, to compare them. If there's any point at all to having a separate C API, it seems to me that the C API should have sufficient flexibility to be efficiently implementable using either POSIX calls, or Windows calls. That would almost certainly not be achievable by simply duplicating the POSIX standard. I'd appreciate knowing, from someone who's at least familiar with all three, and preferably an expert in all three, whether that is indeed what the proposal has attempted? If so, how well has it succeeded? -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 08:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iv1l6v$gf7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7702 |
On 7/5/2011 23:42, James Kuyper wrote: > On 07/05/2011 11:15 PM, Rui Maciel wrote: >> Keith Thompson wrote: >> >>> Can somebody who's familiar with both comment on how similar POSIX >>> threading and C201X threading are? >> >> The degree to which both APIs are similar and which features differ from >> each standard is irrelevant. > > Perhaps it's irrelevant to you; but it's of interest to me, particular > insofar as I lack both sufficient experience with POSIX threads, and > sufficient understanding of the C201X proposal, to compare them. > The "thread" discussion in even C1X strikes me as simply a natural part of the establishment of the sequencing model. Since sequencing detail perhaps left a bit to be desired in C99, its development in C1X might as well consider threads, since there are sequencing concerns there, too. Why, even sequencing concerns about 'volatile' appear to be addressed. Surely, sequencing is a big part of C1X. > If there's any point at all to having a separate C API, it seems to me > that the C API should have sufficient flexibility to be efficiently > implementable using either POSIX calls, or Windows calls. That would > almost certainly not be achievable by simply duplicating the POSIX standard. > > I'd appreciate knowing, from someone who's at least familiar with all > three, and preferably an expert in all three, whether that is indeed > what the proposal has attempted? If so, how well has it succeeded? Right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 15:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e146bd0$0$20923$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #7702 |
James Kuyper wrote: > Perhaps it's irrelevant to you; but it's of interest to me, particular > insofar as I lack both sufficient experience with POSIX threads, and > sufficient understanding of the C201X proposal, to compare them. You didn't understand what I said. The reason why it is irrelevant to compare similarities between both APIs is that, as it was acceptable to create a brand new standard that covers the exact same subject that a widely establised standard already covers for over a decade, then it would also be acceptable to update any part of the pre-existing standard which might need updating. This would simplify the C 201x standardization process a great deal. If the new C 201x standard simply added somewhere in the text the following snippet: "In ISO/IEC 9899:201x, the support for threads is intended to be in conjunction with: - IEEE Std 1003.1c-1995 - POSIX threads API" Then the C standard would be leaner, the standardization process would be simpler and, most importantly, the relevant implementation details could be cleanly separated from each other. > If there's any point at all to having a separate C API, it seems to me > that the C API should have sufficient flexibility to be efficiently > implementable using either POSIX calls, or Windows calls. That would > almost certainly not be achievable by simply duplicating the POSIX > standard. You are talking about POSIX threads as if they were some foreign API which was impossible to implement in any OS. It isn't that case, quite the contrary. POSIX was specificallly designed to be a set of portable interfaces, and you will be hard-pressed to find any relevant platform that supports threads but not only doesn't provide a standard-compliant threads API but also is technically incapable of supporting it. As I've already pointed out, even Microsoft provides pthreads for the Windows platform. So, knowing this, why do you refer to pthreads as something other than a standard for implementing threads in a portable and flexible way? Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web