Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #23604 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-07-23 01:32 -0600 |
| Last post | 2012-08-04 22:54 -0600 |
| Articles | 7 on this page of 107 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-23 01:32 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-23 01:45 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-24 00:19 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-24 11:25 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-24 16:22 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-25 01:53 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-24 21:43 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-24 16:29 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-24 21:53 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-24 23:24 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-25 01:12 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-07-23 10:37 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Andre <lodwig@pathme.de> - 2012-07-23 11:46 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-07-23 11:33 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-23 23:48 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-07-24 10:43 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-07-24 02:58 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-07-24 12:04 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-07-24 05:32 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-07-24 14:20 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-07-24 18:41 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-07-24 12:37 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-24 16:15 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-24 16:05 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-24 23:28 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-25 01:13 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-25 01:26 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-25 05:43 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-07-24 15:10 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-24 16:23 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-24 23:40 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-25 01:32 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-25 01:29 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-25 05:45 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-25 12:35 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-26 00:12 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-26 01:42 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-07-25 09:31 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-25 06:28 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-07-25 16:28 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-07-25 17:17 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-07-26 12:07 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-07-26 14:06 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-07-26 09:45 -0400
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-07-30 09:01 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-26 00:09 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-07-26 00:52 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-07-26 20:35 -0400
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-26 22:35 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-07-27 09:19 -0400
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-07-27 12:51 -0500
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-27 16:19 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-07-27 18:47 -0500
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-07-30 09:10 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-07-31 17:26 -1000
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-08-01 00:18 -0400
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-08-01 10:19 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-01 10:09 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-01 12:51 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-08-01 08:18 -0400
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-01 14:22 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-08-01 09:57 -0400
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-08-01 11:35 -0400
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 11:43 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-09-08 10:13 -0400
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-09-22 23:39 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-09-22 23:45 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-17 13:52 -0800
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-17 13:45 -0800
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-12-17 19:51 -0500
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-12-28 11:11 -0800
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-29 11:31 -0800
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-29 23:59 +0000
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-02 10:01 -0800
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-01-05 12:00 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2013-01-02 13:07 -0800
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-03 12:10 -0800
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-01-05 12:26 -0500
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-09-22 23:35 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-17 14:02 -0800
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-01 10:06 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-01 12:46 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-08-02 08:19 -1000
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-08-02 08:17 -1000
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-03 08:04 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-08-03 09:40 +0200
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-27 22:27 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-28 01:31 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-07-28 10:52 +0100
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-07-28 03:31 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-07-28 00:05 -0400
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-07-27 23:22 -0500
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-07-27 22:35 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-04 08:43 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-04 16:40 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-04 22:58 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-04 23:10 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-05 01:16 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-05 02:25 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-05 03:35 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-05 12:16 -0700
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-05 19:56 +0000
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-06 01:12 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-06 01:07 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-05 13:33 +0000
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-06 01:13 -0600
Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-04 22:54 -0600
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-05 12:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnzk69xi8b.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #24253 |
"Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> writes:
>>> Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>>>> That is a lame post.
>>>>
>>>> Try being less rude.
>>>
>>> And pander to your institution? Ain't gonna happen.
>>
>> Try harder.
>>
>> [snip]
>
> I don't need to do that. I just remember. You are out of the picture too.
> Been for a long time.
I have no idea what you're talking about. And I no longer care.
*plonk*
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-05 19:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jvmj4n$c44$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #24282 |
In article <lnzk69xi8b.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith "Kiki" Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: ... >> I don't need to do that. I just remember. You are out of the picture too. >> Been for a long time. > >I have no idea what you're talking about. And I no longer care. You do know. And, you cared enough to post this. >*plonk* And enough to do that stupidest of all Usenet moves: announcing a plonk. You are soooooo predictable, Kiki. -- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as foolish, and by the rulers as useful. (Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-06 01:12 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <jvnqqn$jt7$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #24284 |
Kenny McCormack wrote: > In article <lnzk69xi8b.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, > Keith "Kiki" Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > ... >>> I don't need to do that. I just remember. You are out of the >>> picture too. Been for a long time. >> >> I have no idea what you're talking about. And I no longer care. > > You do know. > Yes he does. > And, you cared enough to post this. > >> *plonk* > He did do that. He likes "poker" when the odds are stacked in his favor. Else he folds. Game on. > And enough to do that stupidest of all Usenet moves: announcing a > plonk. > > You are soooooo predictable, Kiki. And I do hate boring. But apparently I don't get out enough, for y'all wankers wanna "go throw the football around" or some such lame ass wanker thing. "Enginerds" for sure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-06 01:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <jvnqqm$jt7$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #24282 |
Keith Thompson wrote: > "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> writes: >> Keith Thompson wrote: >>> "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> writes: >>>> Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>> "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> writes: >>> [...] >>>>>> That is a lame post. >>>>> >>>>> Try being less rude. >>>> >>>> And pander to your institution? Ain't gonna happen. >>> >>> Try harder. >>> >>> [snip] >> >> I don't need to do that. I just remember. You are out of the picture >> too. Been for a long time. > > I have no idea what you're talking about. And I no longer care. > > *plonk* "Anonymous Coward".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-05 13:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jvlsnh$hro$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #24242 |
In article <lnd335zx5s.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: ... >>>CPU is layer. C don't programs a instructions, difference that The >>>programs consider specify thin while I language assembly big behavior. >>>specify it >> >> That is a lame post. Every Kiki post is lame. That's what makes them so much fun to read. Every time I point this out, in one form or another, you can hear a giant balloon being popped. Whoosh!!! -- Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public expense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-06 01:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <jvnqqo$jt7$4@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #24263 |
Kenny McCormack wrote: > In article <lnd335zx5s.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > ... >>>> CPU is layer. C don't programs a instructions, difference that The >>>> programs consider specify thin while I language assembly big >>>> behavior. specify it >>> >>> That is a lame post. > > Every Kiki post is lame. That's what makes them so much fun to read. > As if you were in some other category than he.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-04 22:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <jvkuii$8jm$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #24212 |
Malcolm McLean wrote: > ?????? ??? ???, 28 ????? 2012 05:35:49 UTC+1, ??? Ansel: >> "pete" <pfiland@mindspring.com> wrote in message >> >> That is true if the set in which it is being compared is comprised >> of only high-level languages. Relative to most of that set, C is >> indeed relatively low-level. Broaden the scope of the comparison >> set by throwing assembly language into it and then C is clearly >> high-level. The lowest of the high maybe, but definitely high. >> > Really the answer depends on your librsries. Not by my defintions. Your theory rejected.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web