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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #23207 > unrolled thread

The C Containers Library

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

Contents

  The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-07-08 21:53 +0200
    Re: The C Containers Library aftnix <aftnix@gmail.com> - 2012-07-26 13:13 -0700
      Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-07-26 22:31 +0200
        Re: The C Containers Library lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-07-28 17:46 -0400
          Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-07-29 02:05 +0200
            Re: The C Containers Library lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-07-30 14:48 -0400
            Re: The C Containers Library Phil Bradby <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-08-01 21:00 +0000
              Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-01 23:18 +0200
              Re: The C Containers Library Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-02 00:48 -0700
                Re: The C Containers Library James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-02 07:00 -0400
                  Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-02 13:27 +0200
                    Re: The C Containers Library Quentin Pope <qp19433@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> - 2012-08-02 20:27 +0000
                  Re: The C Containers Library Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-02 05:13 -0700
                  Re: The C Containers Library Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-02 14:26 -0700
                    Re: The C Containers Library Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-03 10:47 -0400
          Re: The C Containers Library Noob <root@localhost> - 2012-07-29 09:58 +0200
            Re: The C Containers Library "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-30 00:31 -0600
              Re: The C Containers Library Noob <root@localhost> - 2012-07-30 09:45 +0200
                Re: The C Containers Library Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-07-30 02:10 -0700
            Re: The C Containers Library lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-07-30 14:54 -0400
      Re: The C Containers Library James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-07-26 16:52 -0400
        Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-07-26 22:56 +0200
          Re: The C Containers Library pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2012-07-26 22:29 +0000
            Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-07-27 01:50 +0200
              Re: The C Containers Library pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2012-07-27 22:28 +0000
            Re: The C Containers Library Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-07-29 06:31 -0700
              Re: The C Containers Library "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-30 00:26 -0600
                Re: The C Containers Library Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-07-30 02:21 -0700
                  Re: The C Containers Library "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-02 02:27 -0600
                    Re: The C Containers Library Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-02 16:43 +0100
                      Re: The C Containers Library Ansel <lateknightdev@gmail.com> - 2012-08-02 17:07 -0700
                        Re: The C Containers Library Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-03 22:21 +0100
                          Re: The C Containers Library Ansel <lateknightdev@gmail.com> - 2012-08-03 15:43 -0700
                            Re: The C Containers Library Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-08-04 06:32 +0200
                              Re: The C Containers Library Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-04 01:52 -0700
                                Re: The C Containers Library "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-04 22:36 -0600
                                  Re: The C Containers Library Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-08-05 08:36 +0200
                                    Re: The C Containers Library "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-05 01:28 -0600
                                      Re: The C Containers Library Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-08-05 11:31 +0200
                                        Re: The C Containers Library "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-05 03:48 -0600
              Re: The C Containers Library Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-04 03:41 -0700
          Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-07-27 01:55 +0200
    Re: The C Containers Library wkaras@yahoo.com - 2012-07-26 13:45 -0700
      Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-07-26 22:53 +0200
        Re: The C Containers Library wkaras@yahoo.com - 2012-07-26 18:46 -0700
          Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-07-27 10:59 +0200
            Re: The C Containers Library gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-07-27 03:39 -0700
            Re: The C Containers Library wkaras@yahoo.com - 2012-07-27 11:34 -0700
          Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-07-27 11:04 +0200
            Re: The C Containers Library W Karas <wkaras@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-27 13:10 -0700
    Re: The C Containers Library wkaras@yahoo.com - 2012-07-26 18:54 -0700
      Re: The C Containers Library James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-07-27 10:25 -0400
        Re: The C Containers Library wkaras@yahoo.com - 2012-07-27 11:28 -0700
          Re: The C Containers Library James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-07-27 15:17 -0400
            Re: The C Containers Library wkaras@yahoo.com - 2012-07-27 13:00 -0700
            Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-07-29 02:02 +0200
              Re: The C Containers Library "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-28 22:08 -0600
                Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-07-29 08:46 +0200
                  Re: The C Containers Library pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2012-07-29 07:43 +0000
                    Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-07-29 09:59 +0200
                      Re: The C Containers Library Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-07-29 06:43 -0700
                      Re: The C Containers Library pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2012-07-29 17:27 +0000
                        Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-07-29 20:56 +0200
                          Re: The C Containers Library pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2012-07-30 00:07 +0000
                          Re: The C Containers Library "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-30 00:07 -0600
                        Re: The C Containers Library Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-29 11:58 -0700
                          Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-07-29 22:06 +0200
                        Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-07-29 22:23 +0200
                          Re: The C Containers Library Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-07-30 00:13 +0200
                            Re: The C Containers Library "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-30 00:13 -0600
                              Re: The C Containers Library Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-30 01:10 -0700
                                Re: The C Containers Library "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-30 02:57 -0600
                                  Re: The C Containers Library Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-07-30 15:47 +0000
                                  Re: The C Containers Library Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-30 13:01 -0700
                                Re: The C Containers Library Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-07-30 04:53 -0700
                                  Re: The C Containers Library Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-30 13:04 -0700
                                  Re: The C Containers Library "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-02 02:11 -0600
                                    Re: The C Containers Library James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-02 06:52 -0400
                                  Re: The C Containers Library James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-02 06:46 -0400
                          Re: The C Containers Library Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-07-30 00:41 +0100
                            Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-07-30 09:45 +0200
                    Re: The C Containers Library "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-29 23:05 -0600
                  Re: The C Containers Library "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-29 22:52 -0600
                    Re: The C Containers Library Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-07-30 04:56 -0700
                      Re: The C Containers Library "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-02 02:07 -0600
                    Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-07-30 17:49 +0200
          Re: The C Containers Library Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-07-28 09:17 +0100
            Re: The C Containers Library W Karas <wkaras@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-28 15:17 -0700
              Re: The C Containers Library Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-07-29 11:10 +0100
          Re: The C Containers Library Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-07-28 06:51 -0700
            Re: The C Containers Library Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-28 17:23 +0100
              Re: The C Containers Library Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-07-30 13:40 -0700
                Re: The C Containers Library Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-07-31 00:24 +0200
            Re: The C Containers Library Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-07-31 00:05 +0200
            Re: The C Containers Library Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-07-31 00:53 +0100
              Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-07-31 09:24 +0200
              Re: The C Containers Library Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-02 14:45 -0700
                Re: The C Containers Library Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-03 22:31 +0100
                  Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-04 00:01 +0200
                    Re: The C Containers Library Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-03 23:45 +0100
                      Re: The C Containers Library "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-04 22:47 -0600
                    Re: The C Containers Library "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-04 22:41 -0600
                    Re: The C Containers Library Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-07 10:24 +0100
                      Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-07 15:30 +0200
                        Re: The C Containers Library Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-07 15:35 +0100
                          Re: The C Containers Library Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 12:40 -0700
                            Re: The C Containers Library Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 00:07 +0100
                              Re: The C Containers Library Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 17:31 -0700
                                Re: The C Containers Library Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 03:14 +0100
                                  Re: The C Containers Library Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-08 05:22 -0700
                        Re: The C Containers Library Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 12:36 -0700
                      Re: The C Containers Library Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-08 02:26 -0700
                        Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-08 17:25 +0200
              Re: The C Containers Library 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-03 16:04 -0700
    Re: The C Containers Library SG <s.gesemann@gmail.com> - 2012-08-04 04:52 -0700
      Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-04 18:42 +0200
        Re: The C Containers Library Ike Naar <ike@faeroes.freeshell.org> - 2012-08-04 19:17 +0000
          Re: The C Containers Library Ike Naar <ike@faeroes.freeshell.org> - 2012-08-04 19:22 +0000
          Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-04 22:14 +0200
          Re: The C Containers Library jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-05 00:15 +0200
            Re: The C Containers Library Ike Naar <ike@faeroes.freeshell.org> - 2012-08-04 23:13 +0000
              Re: The C Containers Library "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-04 22:53 -0600

Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7  Next page →

#23758

On 07/26/2012 04:13 PM, aftnix wrote:
> On Monday, July 9, 2012 1:53:07 AM UTC+6, jacob navia wrote:
...
>> I have tried to keep the language of the specifications clear and
>> concise, but I have avoided trying to mimic "standardese" since I
>> believe that the explanations should be understood by all programmers
>> using the library without any artificial restrictions. As a model, I
>> used the language used in the "RFC"s of the interenet, specifications
>> that proved quite useful but are in plain language, understood by
>> everyone.

That's somewhat counterproductive. Whether or not jacob wants it to be,
his proposal, if accepted, would have to be translated into standardese
for inclusion in the C standard. The goal of the standard is not to make
the explanations as easy to understand as possible - that's what text
books are for. The standard needs to have specifications sufficiently
precise to avoid ambiguity, even if that makes them harder to
understand. It must cover the corner cases, even if mentioning the
corner cases interferes with understanding what's supposed to happen in
the normal case.

The need to perform that translation will tend to discourage adoption of
the proposal, all else being equal. On the other hand, someone as
unsympathetic as jacob is to the use of standardese is unlikely to
perform a good translation, so perhaps it is best if he doesn't even
try. If it is adopted, it would almost certainly need a significant
re-write anyway before it could be approved, even if it were written in
fluent standardese.

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

#23760

Le 26/07/12 22:52, James Kuyper a écrit :
> On the other hand, someone as
> unsympathetic as jacob is to the use of standardese is unlikely to
> perform a good translation, so perhaps it is best if he doesn't even
> try.

Can you please translate that into plain english?

Thanks

jacob

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

#23769

In article <jusat8$p3t$2@speranza.aioe.org>,
jacob navia  <jacob@jspamsink.org> wrote:
>Le 26/07/12 22:52, James Kuyper a écrit :
>> On the other hand, someone as
>> unsympathetic as jacob is to the use of standardese is unlikely to
>> perform a good translation, so perhaps it is best if he doesn't even
>> try.
>
>Can you please translate that into plain english?
>
>Thanks

ISO standards are written like legislation, not documentation. The
target audience isn't programmers who want to use the language; it's
lawyers who want to be able to officially place blame when something
goes wrong.

James is saying that you aren't capable of writing in the legalistic
style of an ISO standard.

Just reading the stuff is tedious. Writing it must be even more so.

-- 
Alan Curry

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

#23771

Le 27/07/12 00:29, Alan Curry a écrit :
> In article <jusat8$p3t$2@speranza.aioe.org>,
> jacob navia  <jacob@jspamsink.org> wrote:
>> Le 26/07/12 22:52, James Kuyper a écrit :
>>> On the other hand, someone as
>>> unsympathetic as jacob is to the use of standardese is unlikely to
>>> perform a good translation, so perhaps it is best if he doesn't even
>>> try.
>>
>> Can you please translate that into plain english?
>>
>> Thanks
>
> ISO standards are written like legislation, not documentation. The
> target audience isn't programmers who want to use the language; it's
> lawyers who want to be able to officially place blame when something
> goes wrong.
>

Have you read the RFCs?

They are written in a language anybody can understand. And they have
less ambiguities than the C standard.

My point is that even if you write specifications in a lawyer friendly
language, they do not get better because of that. It is just that the
people that can understand what they mean are less numerous since
now you need to read standardese and correctly interpret it.


> James is saying that you aren't capable of writing in the legalistic
> style of an ISO standard.
>

I really do not know. For instance if you look at the normative parts of 
the documentation they are in my opinion quite clear and they specify
correctly the APIs.

> Just reading the stuff is tedious. Writing it must be even more so.
>

I wanted a documentation that is easy to read and to understand by the
greatest amount of people, and at the same time it is clear, leaving
no ambiguous words. It is a tall order but I think I come close.

Anyway if I fdidn't think that I wouldn't have presented it to the
committee.

Thanks for your input.

jacob

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

#23825

In article <jusl42$fj4$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
jacob navia  <jacob@jspamsink.org> wrote:
>Le 27/07/12 00:29, Alan Curry a écrit :
>> In article <jusat8$p3t$2@speranza.aioe.org>,
>> jacob navia  <jacob@jspamsink.org> wrote:
>>> Le 26/07/12 22:52, James Kuyper a écrit :
>>>> On the other hand, someone as
>>>> unsympathetic as jacob is to the use of standardese is unlikely to
>>>> perform a good translation, so perhaps it is best if he doesn't even
>>>> try.
>>>
>>> Can you please translate that into plain english?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>> ISO standards are written like legislation, not documentation. The
>> target audience isn't programmers who want to use the language; it's
>> lawyers who want to be able to officially place blame when something
>> goes wrong.
>>
>
>Have you read the RFCs?

Lots of them! RFCs are notably not published by ISO. They're more
readable, and also more redistributable (you can actually download the
official RFCs, not just drafts).

>
>They are written in a language anybody can understand. And they have
>less ambiguities than the C standard.
>
>My point is that even if you write specifications in a lawyer friendly
>language, they do not get better because of that. It is just that the
>people that can understand what they mean are less numerous since
>now you need to read standardese and correctly interpret it.

Yes, let's transfer control over the C language to IETF and it'll be
better :)

-- 
Alan Curry

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

#23889

On Jul 26, 11:29 pm, pac...@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) wrote:
> In article <jusat8$p3...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> jacob navia  <ja...@jspamsink.org> wrote:
> >Le 26/07/12 22:52, James Kuyper a crit :

> >> On the other hand, someone as
> >> unsympathetic as jacob is to the use of standardese is unlikely to
> >> perform a good translation, so perhaps it is best if he doesn't even
> >> try.
>
> >Can you please translate that into plain english?
>
> ISO standards are written like legislation, not documentation. The
> target audience isn't programmers who want to use the language; it's
> lawyers who want to be able to officially place blame when something
> goes wrong.

the term "language lawyer" is a metaphor. The standard is intended to
supply an unambiguous defintion of the language.

Personally I find the C Standard very clear and readable. (Take a
look
at the C++ or the ultimate horror- Algol-68)

> James is saying that you aren't capable of writing in the legalistic
> style of an ISO standard.
>
> Just reading the stuff is tedious. Writing it must be even more so.

probably yes

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

#23924

Nick Keighley wrote:
> On Jul 26, 11:29 pm, pac...@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) wrote:
>> In article <jusat8$p3...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>> jacob navia <ja...@jspamsink.org> wrote:
>>> Le 26/07/12 22:52, James Kuyper a crit :
>
>>>> On the other hand, someone as
>>>> unsympathetic as jacob is to the use of standardese is unlikely to
>>>> perform a good translation, so perhaps it is best if he doesn't
>>>> even try.
>>
>>> Can you please translate that into plain english?
>>
>> ISO standards are written like legislation, not documentation. The
>> target audience isn't programmers who want to use the language; it's
>> lawyers who want to be able to officially place blame when something
>> goes wrong.
>
> the term "language lawyer" is a metaphor.

Do tell: explain please.

> The standard is intended to
> supply an unambiguous defintion of the language.
>

You mean, like the Unicode specification does? And the USA laws do? You 
kinda lost me on "intent". Please expound.

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

#23941

On Jul 30, 7:26 am, "Ansel" <tinker...@trytospammenowloser.com> wrote:
> Nick Keighley wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 11:29 pm, pac...@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) wrote:

<snip>

> >> ISO standards are written like legislation, not documentation. The
> >> target audience isn't programmers who want to use the language; it's
> >> lawyers who want to be able to officially place blame when something
> >> goes wrong.
>
> > the term "language lawyer" is a metaphor.
>
> Do tell: explain please.

um. "Language Lawyers" aren't actually lawyers. Checkout "The Jargon
File" if
memory serves me right (I'm blocked from "Hacking Sites"!). LL was I
believe coined
whilst Algol was being defined to describe the incredible pedantic nit
pickers.
No actual lawyers.

I reiterate. I find the C Standard a model of clarity. Show me a
language with an
informal defintion and I'll show you a mess.

> > The standard is intended to
> > supply an unambiguous defintion of the language.
>
> You mean, like the Unicode specification does?

I was talking about the C standard. Ok its not perfect. What is?

Oh, and what's the problem with Unicode?

> And the USA laws do?

legislation isn't a computer language defintion. You seem very
confused.
Legislation is a *hard* problem. Filled with necessary weasel words
like "intent".
If I "intended" to kill someone I may face far more serious
consequences than
if I killed soemone by accident or negligence.

> You kinda lost me on "intent". Please expound.

they meant, to the best of their ability, to unambiguously define the
C
programming language. What else would they be doing? How many people
have
gone to court based on the C Lanaguage Standard?

bizzare...

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

#24118

Nick Keighley wrote:

> Oh, and what's the problem with Unicode?

What *isn't* the problem with Unicode?! Like most one-size-fits-all things, 
it's a severe compromise almost everywhere you use it. All kinds of 
metaphors apply -- like using an 18-wheeler to run errands around town and 
go grocery shopping. One thing you can definitely say about Unicode -- it's 
BIG! 

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

#24138

Ansel wrote:

> What *isn't* the problem with Unicode?! Like most one-size-fits-all
> things, it's a severe compromise almost everywhere you use it. 

Could you provide an example that points out any problem with unicode?


> All kinds
> of metaphors apply -- like using an 18-wheeler to run errands around town
> and go grocery shopping. One thing you can definitely say about Unicode --
> it's BIG!

Considering its purpose, it would be strange if it wasn't big.


Rui Maciel

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

#24156

On Thursday, August 2, 2012 10:43:29 AM UTC-5, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Ansel wrote: > What *isn't* the problem with Unicode?! Like most one-size-fits-all > things, it's a severe compromise almost everywhere you use it. Could you provide an example that points out any problem with unicode? > All kinds > of metaphors apply -- like using an 18-wheeler to run errands around town > and go grocery shopping. One thing you can definitely say about Unicode -- > it's BIG! Considering its purpose, it would be strange if it wasn't big. Rui Maciel

I could surely point out a dozen in fewer minutes than that, but I'm not going to -- exercise left for the reader.

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

#24175

Ansel wrote:

> I could surely point out a dozen in fewer minutes than that, but I'm not
> going to -- exercise left for the reader.

In other words, you can't.


Rui Maciel

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

#24180

On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:21:23 PM UTC-5, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Ansel wrote: > I could surely point out a dozen in fewer minutes than that, but I'm not > going to -- exercise left for the reader. In other words, you can't. Rui Maciel

A lazy student wanting to get all the answers from the teacher instead of doing his homework? Try doing a web search and you will surely get loads of issues, problems, complaints about Unicode. If this was a NG about Unicode, or if there was one, I'd probably drop-in for a few discussions about it. As it is, this is the C NG (BTW, what happened to comp.lang.c.moderated?) and the topic is too far removed from C programming language issues.

So, next time, before you start making childish assertions, and playing childish goading games, you should do a little research on your own first so that you don't look so foolish and immature.

(Yeah, that's it... put that in your whack pipe and smoke it!)

:-)

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

#24190

Ansel <lateknightdev@gmail.com> writes:

> So, next time, before you start making childish assertions, and
> playing childish goading games, you should do a little research on
> your own first so that you don't look so foolish and immature.

 So actually, you cannot point out a single place where the unicode
specification is ambigous (which is what you implied in the start of
this subthread). Another thing I noted, is that you play the offtopic
card, only after you have been unable to play the childish defence of
"Find the answer yourself". 

-- 
/Wegge

Leder efter redundant peering af dk.*,linux.debian.*

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

#24192

On Aug 4, 5:32 am, Anders Wegge Keller <we...@wegge.dk> wrote:
> Ansel <lateknight...@gmail.com> writes:

> > So, next time, before you start making childish assertions, and
> > playing childish goading games, you should do a little research on
> > your own first so that you don't look so foolish and immature.
>
>  So actually, you cannot point out a single place where the unicode
> specification is ambigous (which is what you implied in the start of
> this subthread). Another thing I noted, is that you play the offtopic
> card, only after you have been unable to play the childish defence of
> "Find the answer yourself".

he's probably unhappy they didn't accept the proposal to add Klingon.
I'm with you I think he's just randomly moaning and can't actually
point out any serious problem.

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

#24235

Nick Keighley wrote:
> On Aug 4, 5:32 am, Anders Wegge Keller <we...@wegge.dk> wrote:
>> Ansel <lateknight...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> So, next time, before you start making childish assertions, and
>>> playing childish goading games, you should do a little research on
>>> your own first so that you don't look so foolish and immature.
>>
>> So actually, you cannot point out a single place where the unicode
>> specification is ambigous (which is what you implied in the start of
>> this subthread). Another thing I noted, is that you play the offtopic
>> card, only after you have been unable to play the childish defence of
>> "Find the answer yourself".
>
> he's probably unhappy they didn't accept the proposal to add Klingon.
> I'm with you I think he's just randomly moaning and can't actually
> point out any serious problem.

Wow. I half-jokingly admonished RM for childish goading and then what do you 
two do? That very thing!

Seriously, search the web for deficiencies of Unicode and you will find 
some. I don't see how Unicode is "on-topic" in this NG, and I *know* y'all 
have "topic police" in here. 

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

#24244

"Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> writes:

> Seriously, search the web for deficiencies of Unicode and you will
> find some. I don't see how Unicode is "on-topic" in this NG, and I
> *know* y'all have "topic police" in here.

 I fail to find anyone claiming that the unicode specification is
ambigous. UC is on-topic in the sense that you brought it up as an
example of an incomplete specification document, that you for some
reason found timely to compare to the C standard. I'm trying to figure
out why that is.

 You made a bogus claim in the first place. The easiest way out for
you, is to admit that it was totallty baseless. The other way out, is
to actually prove that you claim had merit. Your feeble excuses are
void, since we would never had this debate in the first place, hadn't
you started it.
 

-- 
/Wegge

Leder efter redundant peering af dk.*,linux.debian.*

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

#24248

Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
> "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> writes:
>
>> Seriously, search the web for deficiencies of Unicode and you will
>> find some. I don't see how Unicode is "on-topic" in this NG, and I
>> *know* y'all have "topic police" in here.
>
> I fail to find anyone claiming that the unicode specification is
> ambigous.

OK. Maybe I just don't like it then and your *cause* of warring for it, 
disinterests me.

>  UC

"UC"?

>  is on-topic in the sense that you brought it up as an
> example of an incomplete specification document,

I did not say that. If you want to be a lawyer, you need to get the facts 
right.

>  that you for some
> reason found timely to compare to the C standard. I'm trying to figure
> out why that is.
>

I "find" you defensive. What are you accusing me of exactly?

> You made a bogus claim in the first place.

Do tell. Are you calling me a liar?

> The easiest way out for
> you

Did you really type that?

>  is to admit

Or else the rubber hose? Are you planning?

> that it was totallty baseless. The other way out, is
> to actually prove that you claim had merit.

What is your name, that you give me ultimatum? (rhetorical, I don't care to 
know).

> Your feeble excuses are
> void, since we would never had this debate in the first place, hadn't
> you started it.

You are testing my convictions? 

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

#24252

"Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> writes:

> Anders Wegge Keller wrote:

>> I fail to find anyone claiming that the unicode specification is
>> ambigous.
 
> OK. Maybe I just don't like it then and your *cause* of warring for
> it, disinterests me.

 That's entirely up to you.

> "UC"?

 Make an educated guess. 

 
>>  is on-topic in the sense that you brought it up as an example of
>> an incomplete specification document,
 
> I did not say that. If you want to be a lawyer, you need to get the
> facts right.


 From <news:jv59g7$co8$1@speranza.aioe.org>

    > The standard is intended to supply an unambiguous defintion of
    > the language.

    You mean, like the Unicode specification does? And the USA laws
    do? You kinda lost me on "intent". Please expound.

 The unquoted text is yours.

>>  that you for some reason found timely to compare to the C
>> standard. I'm trying to figure out why that is.

> I "find" you defensive. What are you accusing me of exactly?

 Stating fiction as fact, and when called, trying to weasel out of it.

>> You made a bogus claim in the first place.
 
> Do tell. Are you calling me a liar?

 No, your attempts to talk yourself out what you said earlier are.

>> that it was totallty baseless. The other way out, is to actually
>> prove that you claim had merit.
 
> What is your name, that you give me ultimatum? (rhetorical, I don't
> care to know).

 You are totally free to ignore me, if you don't like what I
write. Likewise, I'm totally free to continue questioning the quality
of your opinions, if I feel like doing so. 

>> you started it.
 
> You are testing my convictions? 

 No, I'm just stating a fact. Someone has to do, and since you
declined on that part, that onus falls upon me.

-- 
/Wegge

Leder efter redundant peering af dk.*,linux.debian.*

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

#24255

Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
> "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> writes:
>
>> Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
>
>>> I fail to find anyone claiming that the unicode specification is
>>> ambigous.
>
>> OK. Maybe I just don't like it then and your *cause* of warring for
>> it, disinterests me.
>
> That's entirely up to you.
>
>> "UC"?
>
> Make an educated guess.
>
>
Oh, a wanker. Your mom is interested?

>>>  is on-topic in the sense that you brought it up as an example of
>>> an incomplete specification document,
>
>> I did not say that. If you want to be a lawyer, you need to get the
>> facts right.
>
>
> From <news:jv59g7$co8$1@speranza.aioe.org>
>
>    > The standard is intended to supply an unambiguous defintion of
>    > the language.
>
>    You mean, like the Unicode specification does? And the USA laws
>    do? You kinda lost me on "intent". Please expound.
>
> The unquoted text is yours.

I reject your war.

>
>>>  that you for some reason found timely to compare to the C
>>> standard. I'm trying to figure out why that is.
>
>> I "find" you defensive. What are you accusing me of exactly?
>
> Stating fiction as fact, and when called, trying to weasel out of it.

And wars are armed by adolescent males why? What is "war"?

>
>>> You made a bogus claim in the first place.
>
>> Do tell. Are you calling me a liar?
>
> No, your attempts to talk yourself out what you said earlier are.

So go to Canada? I cannot help you with personal dillema.

>
>>> that it was totallty baseless. The other way out, is to actually
>>> prove that you claim had merit.
>
>> What is your name, that you give me ultimatum? (rhetorical, I don't
>> care to know).
>
> You are totally free to ignore me,

That is a lie.

> if you don't like what I
> write.

Isn't that the rub.

>  Likewise, I'm totally free to continue questioning the quality
> of your opinions, if I feel like doing so.

Not good. Freedom to rape is bad. Freedom is good. But "America" is still an 
abstraction.

>
>>> you started it.
>
>> You are testing my convictions?
>
> No, I'm just stating a fact.

State that "fact" please,

> Someone has to do, and since you
> declined on that part, that onus falls upon me.

I assure you that I have nothing to do with your "onus". 

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

Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7  Next page →

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

csiph-web