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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #23892 > unrolled thread

Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C

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

Contents

  Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-07-29 16:11 +0100
    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-07-29 11:18 -0400
      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-07-29 16:24 +0100
      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "China Blue [Tor], Meersburg" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-29 08:34 -0700
        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-29 12:05 -0700
          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "China Blue [Tor], Meersburg" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-29 14:00 -0700
            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-29 15:19 -0700
            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-07-30 00:35 +0100
              Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-07-30 14:54 +0000
                Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-07-30 17:15 +0100
                Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-07-30 12:44 -0400
                  Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-02 13:51 +0000
            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-07-30 11:13 +0200
            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-07-30 01:59 -0700
      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-07-29 17:10 +0000
        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-07-31 14:55 -0700
          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-01 00:24 +0200
            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-08-02 06:12 -0700
    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "Heinrich Wolf" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-29 17:20 +0200
      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-07-29 16:24 +0100
      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2012-07-29 21:41 +0000
        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "Heinrich Wolf" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-30 06:46 +0200
      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "Heinrich Wolf" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-30 06:49 +0200
    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "China Blue [Tor], Meersburg" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-29 08:31 -0700
      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2012-07-29 21:46 +0000
    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-07-29 11:57 -0500
      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-07-30 12:13 +0100
        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-07-30 13:26 +0200
          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-30 12:39 +0100
            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Mark Bluemel <mark_bluemel@pobox.com> - 2012-07-30 13:16 +0100
              Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-07-30 12:39 -0500
            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-07-30 15:02 +0000
          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-07-30 15:18 +0000
          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-07-31 14:53 +0100
          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-08-02 06:21 -0700
      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-07-30 18:10 +0100
        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2012-07-30 13:30 -0400
        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-07-30 13:34 -0400
          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-15 21:21 +0000
            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-15 17:17 -0500
        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-07-30 13:18 -0500
        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Cal Dershowitz <cal@example.invalid> - 2012-08-01 21:08 -0600
          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-02 12:20 +0000
            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-08-02 06:15 -0700
              Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-02 14:16 +0000
                Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-02 11:33 -0400
                Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-08-02 11:51 -0700
                  Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-02 15:03 -0700
                    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-08-02 18:46 -0700
                      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-03 02:18 +0000
                      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-02 21:07 -0700
                        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-08-04 10:40 +0100
                          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-04 03:22 -0700
                          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "Heinrich Wolf" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-08-04 12:34 +0200
                            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-04 13:25 +0000
                              Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-15 13:52 -0400
                            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-04 16:26 -0700
                            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-05 03:27 -0700
                              Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-08-06 01:50 -0700
                                Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-06 07:15 -0400
                                  Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-08-06 04:25 -0700
                                    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-06 09:14 -0400
                                      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-06 14:14 +0000
                                      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-08-06 07:43 -0700
                                        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-06 11:52 -0400
                                        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-06 11:37 -0700
                                    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-06 11:34 -0700
                                      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-06 11:53 -0700
                                      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-08-07 00:33 -0700
                                        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-07 06:44 -0400
                                          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-08-07 05:15 -0700
                                            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-07 08:37 -0400
                                            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-08-07 13:04 +0000
                                            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-07 12:57 -0700
                                              Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-07 21:24 +0000
                                                Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-08 00:58 -0700
                                Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-06 18:04 +0100
                                  Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-06 18:24 +0000
                                    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2012-08-22 17:08 +0000
                                  Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-06 14:46 -0400
                                    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-06 11:55 -0700
                                      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-06 19:13 -0400
                                  Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-06 11:50 -0700
                                    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-06 20:28 +0100
                                      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-06 15:44 -0400
                                        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> - 2012-09-09 22:46 -0500
                                          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-10 04:29 +0000
                                          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-09 22:42 -0700
                                            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-10 19:15 +0000
                                              Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-09-10 22:25 -0400
                                          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-09-10 03:10 -0700
                                          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-10 08:01 -0400
                                      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-08-07 10:22 +0200
                                    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "China Blue [Tor], Meersburg" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-07 01:55 -0700
                                    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-07 21:26 +0000
                                      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-08 08:47 +0100
                                        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-10 21:58 -0600
                                Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-07 00:07 -0700
            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-02 11:27 -0400
        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-16 09:43 +0100

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

#24299

On Aug 6, 12:15 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:

> There's a key word missing from that last sentence. We believe that such
> questions should not be asked HERE.

I don't believe that.

> We think it would be a great idea to
> ask such questions in a different forum where they're more likely to be
> answered promptly and correctly.

And yet I think that too. That a better place exists does not mean
that the sole response should be "ask in <better place>". That POSIX/C/
UNIX technical questions have exactly one place where they should be
asked is a weirdly Manichean point of view.

I'm not a road map, but if someone asks me directions, I don't say
"Road maps will provide more accurate information than I can. Why
don't you buy a road map?"

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

#24300

On 08/06/2012 07:25 AM, gwowen wrote:
> On Aug 6, 12:15�pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
>> There's a key word missing from that last sentence. We believe that such
>> questions should not be asked HERE.
> 
> I don't believe that.

I didn't say that you did. You described a group of people of which I'm
a member (well, not exactly - I was correcting your description of that
group), and when I said "we", I was referring to the members of that group.

>> We think it would be a great idea to
>> ask such questions in a different forum where they're more likely to be
>> answered promptly and correctly.
> 
> And yet I think that too. That a better place exists does not mean
> that the sole response should be "ask in <better place>". That POSIX/C/
> UNIX technical questions have exactly one place where they should be
> asked is a weirdly Manichean point of view.

That they have only one place to be asked would be odd; that they have a
unique best place to be asked is entirely normal - however you measure
it, exact ties for the top position (in any context, not just this one)
are rare. That the most appropriate place is a significantly better
place to ask such questions than c.l.c is a simple matter of fact,
regardless of how many other such places there might be.

> I'm not a road map, but if someone asks me directions, I don't say
> "Road maps will provide more accurate information than I can. Why
> don't you buy a road map?"

I'd be more likely to use the MapQuest app on my smartphone and show
them the best route. However, if I didn't have that with me, and I
wasn't sure of the way, I certainly would recommend asking someone who
knew more than me. Buying a road map would be rather low on the list - I
used to love map books, but I doubt that I will ever again buy one.

Your analogy doesn't really hold up, because buying a road map would
involve a small amount of expense, and (in such a context) a significant
amount of inconvenience, which are both good reasons for me to simply
give the requested directions, if I can. Being redirected to a more
appropriate forum involves no expense and negligible inconvenience - far
less inconvenience than would be caused by getting a subtly incorrect
answer, or by waiting longer than necessary for a correct answer.
-- 
James Kuyper

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

#24301

In article <jvofv4$gta$1@dont-email.me>,
James Kuyper  <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
...
>Your analogy doesn't really hold up, blah, blah, blah...

I so fondly remember that time, back in 1991, where in response to an
analogy on Usenet, someone did *not* respond with (some variation of)
"That's a bad analogy".

-- 
A liberal, a moderate, and a conservative walk into a bar...

Bartender says, "Hi, Mitt!"

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

#24303

On Aug 6, 2:14 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:

> I'd be more likely to use the MapQuest app on my smartphone and show
> them the best route. However, if I didn't have that with me, and I
> wasn't sure of the way,

Well, no-one's suggesting that people who are unsure of the answer
should answer.  Are you really suggesting that comp.lang.c questions
should be restricted to questions that you personally can answer?

For some posters here (not you James, admittedly) it does feel like
that sometimes. Anyone who asks a question that cannot be answered
with a dutifully intoned Chapter/Verse citation from the Holy Standard
gets clubbed with "try comp.unix.programmer you non-portable heretic"

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

#24308

On 08/06/2012 10:43 AM, gwowen wrote:
> On Aug 6, 2:14 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
>> I'd be more likely to use the MapQuest app on my smartphone and show
>> them the best route. However, if I didn't have that with me, and I
>> wasn't sure of the way,
> 
> Well, no-one's suggesting that people who are unsure of the answer
> should answer.  Are you really suggesting that comp.lang.c questions
> should be restricted to questions that you personally can answer?

No, I'm suggesting that it's entirely appropriate for people who don't
know the answer to respond, despite that ignorance, for the purpose of
redirecting the questioner to a forum where it will be easier to find
people qualified to answer it.

I also believe that it's a good idea to give such a response even if the
responder does know the answer. Just because the answer is known doesn't
mean that it's a good idea to give the answer here.

Someone writing a game program set in the universe of Lois McMaster
Bujold's Vorkosigan series might want to know whether or not there's a
direct connection from Earth to Cetaganda. I know the answer to that
question, but I would not consider it a good idea to answer it here,
regardless of whether or not the program was written in C. I feel that
questions about POSIX (some of which I am qualified to answer) should be
treated the same way.

> For some posters here (not you James, admittedly) it does feel like
> that sometimes. Anyone who asks a question that cannot be answered
> with a dutifully intoned Chapter/Verse citation from the Holy Standard
> gets clubbed with "try comp.unix.programmer you non-portable heretic"

There's no one here who treats the standard as Holy, though it may
sometimes seem that way when someone is able to provide precise
"Chapter/Verse" citations. The standard was written by a committee of
fallible human beings, and many examples of that fallibility are present
in the actual standard, and I don't think you'll find many people here
who'd disagree with that statement. The closest you'll come to that is
Douglas Gwyn, and even he recognized that some mistakes were made.

I haven't seen any such clubbing applied to newbies, just reasonably
polite re-directions. Progressively less polite messages are sometimes
sent to people who should know better, but that seems entirely justified
to me (though unlikely to succeed).

Microsoft-specific questions are, if anything, even more aggressively
redirected than POSIX-specific ones.

I don't know anyone here who would advocate a complete avoidance of
non-portable code. The closest you could get was CBFalconer, but his
approach was different - he didn't advocate avoiding non-portable code,
he simply pretended to believe that code which was non-portable wouldn't
actually work, regardless of platform, no matter how ridiculous that
claim made him seem.
For many purposes, non-portable code is not merely necessary or
acceptable, but actually a good idea, and I doubt you'll find many
people on this group that would disagree with that statement, either.

I can't remember anybody being branded a heretic by anybody for writing
non-portable code.

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

#24314

gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> writes:
> On Aug 6, 2:14 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> I'd be more likely to use the MapQuest app on my smartphone and show
>> them the best route. However, if I didn't have that with me, and I
>> wasn't sure of the way,
>
> Well, no-one's suggesting that people who are unsure of the answer
> should answer.  Are you really suggesting that comp.lang.c questions
> should be restricted to questions that you personally can answer?
>
> For some posters here (not you James, admittedly) it does feel like
> that sometimes. Anyone who asks a question that cannot be answered
> with a dutifully intoned Chapter/Verse citation from the Holy Standard
> gets clubbed with "try comp.unix.programmer you non-portable heretic"

I really don't understand the tendency to describe this in religious
terms.  If those of us who like to redirect off-topic questions really
phrased our suggestions that way, or in any vaguely similar way, you'd
have a point.

I typically write something like "You'd get better answers in
comp.unix.programmer".  What is your objection to that?

-- 
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]

#24313

gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> writes:
> On Aug 6, 12:15 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> There's a key word missing from that last sentence. We believe that such
>> questions should not be asked HERE.
>
> I don't believe that.

Why not?

When I mention that a question would be better asked elsewhere, I almost
always suggest one or more newsgroups that would be a better fit.  Have
you not noticed that?

[...]

-- 
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]

#24317

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Aug 6, 12:15 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> There's a key word missing from that last sentence. We believe that such
>>> questions should not be asked HERE.
>>
>> I don't believe that.
>
> Why not?
>
> When I mention that a question would be better asked elsewhere, I almost
> always suggest one or more newsgroups that would be a better fit.  Have
> you not noticed that?
>
> [...]

I probably misunderstood you.  I thought you meant you didn't
believe James's statement that "We believe that such questions
should not be asked HERE", i.e., that you were expressing doubt
about what we believe.  On further consideration, I think you meant
that you don't believe that such questions should not be asked here.
Assuming that's the case, please ignore my previous response.  (I
still disagee with you.)

-- 
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]

#24340

On Aug 6, 7:34 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> gwowen <gwo...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Aug 6, 12:15 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> There's a key word missing from that last sentence. We believe that such
> >> questions should not be asked HERE.
>
> > I don't believe that.
>
> Why not?

Sorry, vague answer.  I meant "I do not believe that such questions
should be asked here."  Not "I do not believe that you believe that
such questions should be asked here".

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

#24345

On 08/07/2012 03:33 AM, gwowen wrote:
> On Aug 6, 7:34�pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> gwowen <gwo...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Aug 6, 12:15�pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> There's a key word missing from that last sentence. We believe that such
>>>> questions should not be asked HERE.
>>
>>> I don't believe that.
>>
>> Why not?
> 
> Sorry, vague answer.  I meant "I do not believe that such questions
> should be asked here."  Not "I do not believe that you believe that
> such questions should be asked here".

"Vague" doesn't quite cover it. To me, you seemed to be saying 'I don't
believe "that such questions should not be asked here".', which is
almost, but not quite, exactly the opposite of what you meant.
-- 
James Kuyper

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

#24346

On Aug 7, 11:44 am, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:

> "Vague" doesn't quite cover it. To me, you seemed to be saying 'I don't
> believe "that such questions should not be asked here".', which is
> almost, but not quite, exactly the opposite of what you meant.

No. That's exactly what I meant. I don't believe that such questions
should not be asked here.

I believe that any question relating to the C language, including
common extensions and C APIs like POSIX, pthreads, the Win32 C API,
Jacob's Container library, DOS TSR, Borland C should all be welcomed.

Some of those may get better answers elsewhere, and there's no problem
in pointing that out but if that's all you've got to say, you're
probably best off keeping quiet for a day or so, to see if someone who
knows more comes along.

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

#24347

On 08/07/2012 08:15 AM, gwowen wrote:
> On Aug 7, 11:44�am, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
>> "Vague" doesn't quite cover it. To me, you seemed to be saying 'I don't
>> believe "that such questions should not be asked here".', which is
>> almost, but not quite, exactly the opposite of what you meant.
> 
> No. That's exactly what I meant. I don't believe that such questions
> should not be asked here.

In your previous message you said:
> ... I meant "I do not believe that such questions should be asked here."

The only difference between those two different expressions, by you, of
what you meant (other than "do not" => "don't") is "should" => "should
not", a difference that changes the meaning radically. I hope you can
understand how such tiny discrepancies can lead to major confusion.

...
> Some of those may get better answers elsewhere, and there's no problem
> in pointing that out but if that's all you've got to say, you're
> probably best off keeping quiet for a day or so, to see if someone who
> knows more comes along.

I believe that the earlier the poster is re-directed to a more
appropriate forum, the better. He or she will get better answers sooner
that way.

-- 
James Kuyper

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

#24348

On 2012-08-07, gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe that any question relating to the C language,
> including common extensions and C APIs like POSIX, pthreads,
> the Win32 C API, Jacob's Container library, DOS TSR, Borland C
> should all be welcomed.

Despite that, I hope you can see why a person interested in C
programming wouldn't wish this group to be filled with
discussions of non-standard C libraries and implementation
details of unknown compilers.

Conversely, most regulars of this newgroup are respectful to
those who come here with initially mistaken assumptions.

> Some of those may get better answers elsewhere, and there's no
> problem in pointing that out but if that's all you've got to
> say, you're probably best off keeping quiet for a day or so, to
> see if someone who knows more comes along.

comp.lang.c is an unmoderated group with effectively no charter.
Thus, if you are invested in defining the topic of this
newsgroup, then some sort of action is required.

You may make the accusation that this group spends perhaps too
much time and bandwidth defining itself. But it's long-standing
part of its culture.

-- 
Neil Cerutti

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

#24357

gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> writes:
> On Aug 7, 11:44 am, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Vague" doesn't quite cover it. To me, you seemed to be saying 'I don't
>> believe "that such questions should not be asked here".', which is
>> almost, but not quite, exactly the opposite of what you meant.
>
> No. That's exactly what I meant. I don't believe that such questions
> should not be asked here.
>
> I believe that any question relating to the C language, including
> common extensions and C APIs like POSIX, pthreads, the Win32 C API,
> Jacob's Container library, DOS TSR, Borland C should all be welcomed.
>
> Some of those may get better answers elsewhere, and there's no problem
> in pointing that out but if that's all you've got to say, you're
> probably best off keeping quiet for a day or so, to see if someone who
> knows more comes along.

Ok, let me ask you a more specific question.

If someone has a question about, say, the fork() function (which
is defined by POSIX and not by ISO C), would that person be better
off asking that question in comp.lang.c or in comp.unix.programmer?

The answer seems obvious to me: it's better to ask in
comp.unix.programmer, largely because it's a Unix/POSIX-specific
question, and that's where the experts hang out.  Do you agree?

Are you seriously saying we should "keep quiet for a day or so"
rather than letting the questioner know about a better forum?

-- 
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]

#24358

In article <lnobmmwk3y.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson  <kst-u@mib.org> wrote his usual twaddle, full of the usual "assume that which is to be proven" falacies:
...
>Are you seriously saying we should "keep quiet for a day or so"
>rather than letting the questioner know about a better forum?

In short: Yes.  As I've explained to you repeatedly over the last few days,
the ethic in every other group/online forum is: If you can't (or won't)
answer the question, then STFU.  Do not get in the way of others who can and
will.  As they say in the army, lead, follow, or get out of the way!

This method works very well and should be followed here.

See, the problem is that even *if* your intentions are pure (when you
"redirect" the questioner to a more "appropriate" group), which is highly
doubtful, BTW, the questioner never sees it that way.  Instead, all he sees
is you being a jerk.

-- 
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]

#24367

On Aug 7, 10:24 pm, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
wrote:
> In article <lnobmmwk3y....@nuthaus.mib.org>,
> Keith Thompson  <ks...@mib.org>

<snip>

> >Are you seriously saying we should "keep quiet for a day or so"
> >rather than letting the questioner know about a better forum?
>
> In short: Yes.  As I've explained to you repeatedly over the last few days,
> the ethic in every other group/online forum is: If you can't (or won't)
> answer the question, then STFU.

I know you keep on saying this but I haven't come across it.
Most other .lang groups don't get as much topic busting as comp.lang.c
but I'm sure I've seen people being politely redirected on other
groups.

Besides don't you get bored repeating yourself?

<snip>

> See, the problem is that even *if* your intentions are pure (when you
> "redirect" the questioner to a more "appropriate" group), which is highly
> doubtful, BTW, the questioner never sees it that way.  Instead, all he sees
> is you being a jerk.

I've known people to say thankyou sometimes.

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

#24310

"gwowen" <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:90326476-cbc2-49ea-b55e-9cd794727529@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 5, 11:27 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Aug 4, 11:34 am, "Heinrich Wolf" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > I do not mind your question. And I do not restrict a C forum to only 
>> > Windows
>> > OS.
>>
>> nor does anyone else. The point is *both* Unix and Windows specific
>> questions are off-topic.
>
> So it is repeatedly claimed.  Such repitition aside, I don't see any
> evidence that that is actually the case.

C is a funny language in that it pervades everywhere and people having 
issues with it may not be aware of the strict partitioning into standard 
language / extensions / compilers / implementations / platform / libraries / 
applications / hardware / etc that some try to enforce here. As far as the 
latter are concerned, only the standard language is on-topic (plus anything 
to do with topicality!)

But the standard language would be quite a narrow topic, unless you are 
interested in C Standard minutiae, while most questions seem to be covered 
by the FAQ. Since traffic on the group is quite low, and many of the more 
relevant groups are pretty much dead, I can't see the problems. Just put 
"OT" in front of the subject to stop anyone complaining.

-- 
Bartc 

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

#24312

In article <jvotgo$7rs$1@dont-email.me>, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
...
>But the standard language would be quite a narrow topic, unless you are 
>interested in C Standard minutiae, while most questions seem to be covered 
>by the FAQ. Since traffic on the group is quite low, and many of the more 
>relevant groups are pretty much dead, I can't see the problems. Just put 
>"OT" in front of the subject to stop anyone complaining.

The thing to keep in mind is that the obsession with "What's in the standard
and only what's in the standard" is not divine truth.  It is merely human
definition.  It could easily be otherwise, and, as I've noted many times,
most other groups (online forums in general) choose not to go down this
dusty old path.  In fact, most groups (online forums) do both of the
following:
    1) Have an ethic that if you can't (or won't) answer the question, then
	please quietly and calmly STFU.
    2) Have a loose definition of topicality and rightly allow questions
	relating to using the language, not just the Biblical
	interpretations of what the language is.

The point is that I'm willing to grant (but see below) that there's a place
for the picayunish standards nit-picking that obviously thrills a certain
sort of person - but this isn't it.  A group called comp.lang.c should be
about C and using C.  If you want comp.religion.c (or whatever you choose to
call it), by all means create a group for it.  But this here group *isn't it*.

As I noted upthread, the real problem is that the top-level name
(comp.lang.c) got usurped by people who should have known better - and knew
that they should have created a new group for their Biblical musings - but
didn't do so.

Final note to those who will try to picture my posts as misguided ramblings,
please note that the text speaks for itself.  If you go back, you will see
that folks like Kiki and so on are on record as saying that the reason they
made topicality so strict here was specifically to ward off evil things
happening - for example, they like to point to "what happened in the C++
group" as their prime example.

So, they simply cannot maintnain that the topicality rules are God-given;
they are clearly man-made - and for a very specific and intended purpose.

-- 
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy  of the church so decides." 

    - Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order -

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

#24706

In article <jvp24n$55f$1@news.xmission.com>,
Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>The thing to keep in mind is that the obsession with "What's in the
>standard and only what's in the standard" is not divine truth.

If they're concerned with that, they're in the wrong newsgroup.

That is "comp.std.c".

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

#24315

On 08/06/2012 01:04 PM, BartC wrote:
...
> C is a funny language in that it pervades everywhere and people having 
> issues with it may not be aware of the strict partitioning into standard 
> language / extensions / compilers / implementations / platform / libraries / 
> applications / hardware / etc that some try to enforce here. As far as the 
> latter are concerned, only the standard language is on-topic (plus anything 
> to do with topicality!)
> 
> But the standard language would be quite a narrow topic, unless you are 
> interested in C Standard minutiae, while most questions seem to be covered 
> by the FAQ. Since traffic on the group is quite low, ...

It has more traffic than I can easily deal with. Only by filtering out a
lot of the noise does it become feasible to keep pace with it.

> ...and many of the more 
> relevant groups are pretty much dead, ...

If the most appropriate alternative forum (which need not be a usenet
newsgroup) for discussing a given OS/library/software package is "pretty
much dead", than the thing being discussed is presumably also "pretty
much dead" - otherwise, where do people go to discuss it? They certainly
don't come here - nothing other than C is discussed here frequently
enough for this to be the main place where an active user community for
that thing hangs out.

The closest you could get would be lcc-win32, which for some reason is
discussed here fairly frequently, rather than on comp.lang.lcc. However,
most of the lcc-win32 "users" posting on this newsgroup use a pseudonym
containing the word "tea" to launch attacks on jacob. If it were
actually the case that those "users" constituted the bulk of his user
base, then lcc-win32 would be accurately described as "pretty much dead"
- which I don't believe is the case.

As a result, while c.l.c might be the best place to post questions about
things that are "pretty much dead", it will still be a bad place to post
them here, because there wouldn't be many people here, either, who know
anything about those things. On the flip side, something is "pretty much
dead", then we shouldn't get many questions about it, either.

However, I can't quite get my head around the concept that either
Microsoft Windows or POSIX could be described as "pretty much dead".
Could you explain that to me? Are you really saying that those systems
are both so nearly dead that there's no forum better than c.l.c for
users of those systems to go to for advice?

> ... I can't see the problems. Just put 
> "OT" in front of the subject to stop anyone complaining.

For a subject such as POSIX or Windows, for which there are forums which
are not "pretty much dead", labeling the questions with "OT" won't solve
the main problem - which is that there are better places to get answers
to those questions.

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

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

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

csiph-web