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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #28322 > unrolled thread

some well known stupidness in c99

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

Contents

  some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 01:21 -0800
    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2012-11-18 10:41 +0100
    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 SG <sgesemann@gmail.invalid> - 2012-11-18 10:41 +0100
      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 02:02 -0800
        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 SG <sgesemann@gmail.invalid> - 2012-11-18 11:23 +0100
          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 02:26 -0800
        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-18 12:16 +0000
          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 05:27 -0800
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-18 14:24 +0000
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 06:44 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 06:50 -0800
                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 11:07 -0500
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-18 12:22 -0500
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 09:39 -0800
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-18 20:22 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 17:04 -0500
                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-18 22:45 +0000
                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-18 18:02 -0500
                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 00:04 +0000
                        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 19:20 -0500
                          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 00:59 +0000
                            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 20:13 -0500
                              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 01:36 +0000
                                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 21:12 -0500
                                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 11:20 +0000
                        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-19 11:09 -0500
                          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 18:25 +0000
                            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-19 14:02 -0500
                              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 21:55 +0000
                                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-19 17:50 -0500
                                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-19 23:05 +0000
                                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 18:16 -0500
                                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-20 08:14 -0500
                                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 08:33 -0500
                                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 23:38 +0000
                                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-20 08:19 -0500
                                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-20 15:28 +0000
                                        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-20 13:25 -0800
                                          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 22:22 +0000
                                          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-20 22:26 +0000
                                            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-21 00:16 +0000
                                              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-21 01:05 +0000
                                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-20 13:24 -0500
                                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-20 18:54 +0000
                                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 22:31 +0000
                                        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-20 20:38 -0800
                                        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-21 12:00 -0500
                                          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-21 18:30 +0000
                                            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-21 13:51 -0500
                                              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-21 19:47 +0000
                                              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-21 20:21 +0000
                                                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-21 21:25 +0000
                                                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-21 23:02 +0000
                                                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-22 11:56 +0000
                                                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-22 15:01 +0000
                                                        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-22 18:43 +0000
                                                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-21 23:58 +0000
                                                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-22 14:37 +0000
                                                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-22 17:12 +0000
                                                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-21 16:47 -0800
                                                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-22 01:23 +0000
                                                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-22 08:19 -0500
                                                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-22 15:34 +1300
                                                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-22 04:18 +0000
                                                        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-22 17:31 +1300
                                                          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-22 14:18 +0000
                                                        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-22 09:28 +0000
                                                          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-22 14:10 +0000
                                                          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2012-11-28 01:12 -0500
                                                            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-28 09:50 +0000
                                                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-22 11:43 +0000
                                                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-22 11:34 +0000
                                                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-22 09:57 -0800
                                                        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-22 18:47 +0000
                                                          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-22 11:39 -0800
                            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 14:08 -0500
                              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-19 21:32 +0000
                                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 16:35 -0500
                              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 21:51 +0000
                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 18:38 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-19 14:05 -0500
                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 21:25 +0000
                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-20 12:21 -0500
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-19 13:57 -0500
    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-18 03:47 -0800
    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 10:56 -0500
      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 09:11 -0800
        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-18 15:10 -0500
          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 12:52 -0800
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 21:29 +0000
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> - 2012-11-18 22:35 +0100
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-18 17:00 -0500
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-19 14:38 +1300
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-18 21:14 -0500
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-19 03:56 +0000
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-18 22:06 +0000
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-18 23:44 +0000
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 01:16 +0000
            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-18 14:20 -0800
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 15:33 -0800
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 01:21 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 01:45 -0800
                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 11:35 +0000
                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 05:01 -0800
                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-19 15:37 -0500
                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 08:21 -0500
                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 05:42 -0800
                        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 06:06 -0800
                          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 10:02 -0500
                          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 08:51 -0800
                            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-19 21:35 +0000
                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 09:06 -0500
                        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 14:25 +0000
                          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-19 11:42 -0500
                            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 09:06 -0800
                              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 12:31 -0500
                                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 09:42 -0800
                                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 13:36 -0500
                                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-19 11:57 -0800
                                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 15:07 -0500
                                        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-19 15:21 -0500
                                          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 15:37 -0500
                                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Greg Martin <greg@softsprocket.com> - 2012-11-19 11:10 -0800
                                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 11:22 -0800
                                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 14:41 -0500
                                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Greg Martin <greg@softsprocket.com> - 2012-11-19 12:04 -0800
                                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-20 12:08 -0500
                                        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 11:37 -0800
                                          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 15:33 -0500
                                            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 21:14 +0000
                                              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 16:39 -0500
                                                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-20 13:57 -0800
                                                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 17:01 -0500
                                                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-21 11:07 +1300
                                                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 17:23 -0500
                                                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 14:46 -0800
                                                        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Greg Martin <greg@softsprocket.com> - 2012-11-20 14:56 -0800
                                                          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 15:10 -0800
                                                            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Greg Martin <greg@softsprocket.com> - 2012-11-20 15:26 -0800
                                                              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 16:00 -0800
                                                                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-21 12:10 -0500
                                                                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-21 09:45 -0800
                                                                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-21 13:43 -0500
                                                                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rosario1903 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2012-11-22 10:25 +0100
                                                                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-21 12:08 -0800
                                                                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> - 2012-11-21 16:42 -0500
                                                                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-22 10:49 +1300
                                                                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-21 15:55 -0800
                                                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 14:58 -0800
                                                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-21 11:49 -0500
                                                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-21 11:12 +1300
                                                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 22:41 +0000
                                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-19 15:46 -0500
                                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-19 16:39 -0500
                                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-19 16:33 -0800
                                        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-20 00:20 -0600
                                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-19 22:12 +0000
                                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-20 00:34 -0600
                                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 10:20 -0800
                                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-19 13:40 -0500
                                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-19 22:00 +0000
                            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 17:49 +0000
                              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 11:05 -0800
                            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-19 21:48 +0000
                              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-19 17:58 -0500
                                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-19 23:16 +0000
                                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-19 16:39 -0800
                                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 01:28 +0000
                                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-20 08:22 -0500
                                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 19:01 +0000
                                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 23:50 +0000
                                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 23:18 -0800
                                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 23:28 -0800
                                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-20 10:53 +0000
                                        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 03:19 -0800
                                        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 03:39 -0800
                                          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-20 12:52 +0000
                                            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 04:59 -0800
                                              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-20 15:47 +0000
                                                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 11:21 -0800
                                              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 16:11 +0000
                                        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 19:18 +0000
                                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 02:51 -0800
                        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-12-14 23:28 -0500
                          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-17 12:37 +0200
                            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-12-17 06:00 -0500
                              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-17 23:43 +0200
                                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-12-17 19:23 -0500
                                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-12-18 13:31 +1300
                                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-12-17 20:17 -0500
                                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-18 00:48 +0000
                                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-12-18 15:38 -0500
                        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-12-16 10:50 -0500
                          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-12-16 10:58 -0500
                          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-12-16 16:47 -0500
                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-11-19 14:17 +0000
              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 00:38 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 02:34 -0800
                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-11-20 07:38 -0500
                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 04:47 -0800
                Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-20 13:14 -0800
                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-11-20 21:27 +0000
                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 16:48 -0500
                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-11-20 16:28 -0500
                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-21 10:29 +1300
                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-20 22:32 +0000
                      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 18:14 -0500
                        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-21 01:52 +0000
                          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-20 22:31 -0500
                            Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-21 04:40 +0000
                              Re: some well known stupidness in c99 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-21 08:11 -0500
                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-20 14:02 -0800
                  Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 15:29 -0800
                    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 16:54 -0800
          Re: some well known stupidness in c99 gof@somewhere.invalid (Adam Wysocki) - 2012-11-20 15:51 +0000
        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-11-18 21:26 +0000
    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-11-18 10:57 -0800
    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-18 13:44 -0800
      Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2012-11-18 23:38 -0500
        Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-12-14 23:13 -0500
    Re: some well known stupidness in c99 Stanley Rice <heconghui@gmail.com> - 2012-11-27 17:22 -0800

Page 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12  Next page →

#28475

fir wrote:

> I mean that this way of array definition seem
> to be better (than present)
> 
> int t[100];    <- worse
> 
> int[100] t;   <- better

The Go programming language supports a similar syntax for array declaration.  
It goes something like:

var t [100]int


As a side note, after taking a look at Go, I suspect that it's only a matter 
of time until Go takes C's place in the computing world, and the C 
programming language finds itself going the way of the dodo (or cobol).


Rui Maciel

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

#28481

BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
 
> "fir" <profesor.fir@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:609eeb68-3d5b-43e0-a957-eb6165eea364@googlegroups.com...

>>> the question is how syntax to choose to distinguish between 
>>> pointers-to-one and pointers-to-many in such cases:
>>> void print(char* text)  //pointer to undefined many
>>> {
>>> }
>>> void print(char(1)* text)  //pointer to one ?
>>> {
>>> }
 
>> also think sometimes (like here) if java-like
>> syntax wouldnt be clearer

>> char a;   //a is adress to one
>> char[] a; //a is adress to undefined many
>> char[16] a; //a is adress to chunk of 16 chars

If you want to call them addreses, you need to be careful as
to what is constant and what isn't.

In the first case, &a is a constant. In the third case, 
I am not so sure, but a would be for char a[16];

>> it seem clearer and *a could be reserved
>> eventually for old way
 
> In my opinion, C type syntax is broken. And that's not just the convoluted 
> syntax.
 
> It's because char[] means different things in different contexts: an array 
> in some places, and a pointer in another:
 
> char a[]={65,66,67};    // array
 
> void fn (char[] a);      // pointer

Not quite as many meanings as the word "static", though.
 
> char[] meaning array would be illegal in a parameter context, but instead of 
> leaving that hole in the 'map' of possible types, everything moves up one 
> instead! The penchant for C to gloss over any dereferences needed - or not 
> needed - to index an array/pointer, just confuses things further.

I believe that some think that the function argument [] was a mistake,
though I sort of like it. (Not that I usually use it.)

The array case could have been done something like char a[*]={65,66,67};
indicating that there is an unknown length.

> I think you have your work cut out...

-- glen

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

#28458

> 
> void print(char text[])
> 
> {
>    for(int i=0; i<lengthof(text); i++)   
>        put_char_on_console(text[i]);
> }
> 

(soory for may maneer of writing under my own 
posts, but I often feel a need to add more, and
there is no edit option so I use it this way)

eventually sizeof could be even considered
if 

int a[100];

sizeof(a) // gives 400 bytes of size
sizeof(a[0]) // gives 4 bytes of size

sizeof(a[]) //could return 100 elements of size

(i am not saying that it is the better option 
but it can be considered)

Those all ways considered are my own interest 
couse I am working on some logical improvements to c language (codenamed also sometimes c2 language)

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

#29265

On 11/19/2012 09:06, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 11/19/2012 08:21 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 11/19/2012 06:35 AM, BartC wrote:
> ...
>>> #define lengthof(x) (sizeof(x)/sizeof(x[0]))
>>>
>>> In C it's all done with macros.
> ...
>> I'm reasonably sure he's interested in an operator that could be applied
>> to a pointer (not an array) to give the length of the array it points
>> at.
>
> Correction: if pointer did point at an array:
>
> 	int (*parray)[15];
>
> lengthof(*parray) would gives 15, the desired value. That's not the
> problematic case. It's pointers that point at the first element of an
> array (such as "Hello world!") that lengthof() doesn't handle in the
> desired fashion.
>

lengthof("Hello world!") returns the expected value, as the string 
literal here is an array, and the operator [on the LHS of '/'] is 'sizeof'.

(But James has blocked my posts, so he'll never know.)

I might've said:

   char * hello = "Hello world!";
   /*
    * Nope.  Always going to be:
    *   sz == sizeof (char *)
    * No matter how the string literal is changed.
    */
   size_t sz = lengthof(hello);

- Shao Miller

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

#29384

Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> writes:
> On 11/19/2012 09:06, James Kuyper wrote:
> > On 11/19/2012 08:21 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
> >> On 11/19/2012 06:35 AM, BartC wrote:
> > ...
> >>> #define lengthof(x) (sizeof(x)/sizeof(x[0]))
> >>>
> >>> In C it's all done with macros.
> > ...
> >> I'm reasonably sure he's interested in an operator that could be applied
> >> to a pointer (not an array) to give the length of the array it points
> >> at.
> >
> > Correction: if pointer did point at an array:
> >
> > 	int (*parray)[15];
> >
> > lengthof(*parray) would gives 15, the desired value. That's not the
> > problematic case. It's pointers that point at the first element of an
> > array (such as "Hello world!") that lengthof() doesn't handle in the
> > desired fashion.
> >
> 
> lengthof("Hello world!") returns

Only functions "return". Operators "yield", or "evaluate to", or ... .

Phil
-- 
I'm not saying that google groups censors my posts, but there's a strong link
between me saying "google groups sucks" in articles, and them disappearing.

Oh - I guess I might be saying that google groups censors my posts.

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

#29389

On 12/17/2012 05:37, Phil Carmody wrote:
> Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 11/19/2012 09:06, James Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 11/19/2012 08:21 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>> On 11/19/2012 06:35 AM, BartC wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> #define lengthof(x) (sizeof(x)/sizeof(x[0]))
>>>>>
>>>>> In C it's all done with macros.
>>> ...
>>>> I'm reasonably sure he's interested in an operator that could be applied
>>>> to a pointer (not an array) to give the length of the array it points
>>>> at.
>>>
>>> Correction: if pointer did point at an array:
>>>
>>> 	int (*parray)[15];
>>>
>>> lengthof(*parray) would gives 15, the desired value. That's not the
>>> problematic case. It's pointers that point at the first element of an
>>> array (such as "Hello world!") that lengthof() doesn't handle in the
>>> desired fashion.
>>>
>>
>> lengthof("Hello world!") returns
>
> Only functions "return". Operators "yield", or "evaluate to", or ... .
>

Quite right; my mistake.  I was thinking along the lines of the numerous 
"macro returns" usage in the C Standard, but this is clearly no library 
macro.  "Yields" definitely makes more sense.

- Shao Miller

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

#29432

Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> writes:
> On 12/17/2012 05:37, Phil Carmody wrote:
> > Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> writes:
> >> On 11/19/2012 09:06, James Kuyper wrote:
> >>> On 11/19/2012 08:21 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
> >>>> On 11/19/2012 06:35 AM, BartC wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>>> #define lengthof(x) (sizeof(x)/sizeof(x[0]))
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In C it's all done with macros.
> >>> ...
> >>>> I'm reasonably sure he's interested in an operator that could be applied
> >>>> to a pointer (not an array) to give the length of the array it points
> >>>> at.
> >>>
> >>> Correction: if pointer did point at an array:
> >>>
> >>> 	int (*parray)[15];
> >>>
> >>> lengthof(*parray) would gives 15, the desired value. That's not the
> >>> problematic case. It's pointers that point at the first element of an
> >>> array (such as "Hello world!") that lengthof() doesn't handle in the
> >>> desired fashion.
> >>>
> >>
> >> lengthof("Hello world!") returns
> >
> > Only functions "return". Operators "yield", or "evaluate to", or ... .
> 
> Quite right; my mistake.  I was thinking along the lines of the
> numerous "macro returns" usage in the C Standard, but this is clearly
> no library macro.  "Yields" definitely makes more sense.

Many of those other 'returns' were single-handedly purged a while back,
post '99, I think.

Phil
-- 
I'm not saying that google groups censors my posts, but there's a strong link
between me saying "google groups sucks" in articles, and them disappearing.

Oh - I guess I might be saying that google groups censors my posts.

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

#29445

Phil Carmody wrote:
 
> Many of those other 'returns'
> were single-handedly purged a while back, post '99, I think.

In the C90 standard, 
the bitwise operators were described as returning values.

-- 
pete

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

#29446

pete wrote:
> Phil Carmody wrote:
>
>> Many of those other 'returns'
>> were single-handedly purged a while back, post '99, I think.
>
> In the C90 standard,
> the bitwise operators were described as returning values.

I didn't realise the C90 standard was "post '99"...

-- 
Ian Collins

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

#29452

Ian Collins wrote:
> 
> pete wrote:
> > Phil Carmody wrote:
> >
> >> Many of those other 'returns'
> >> were single-handedly purged a while back, post '99, I think.
> >
> > In the C90 standard,
> > the bitwise operators were described as returning values.
> 
> I didn't realise the C90 standard was "post '99"...

Nor should you have.

-- 
pete

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

#29450

pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Phil Carmody wrote:
 
>> Many of those other 'returns'
>> were single-handedly purged a while back, post '99, I think.
 
> In the C90 standard, 
> the bitwise operators were described as returning values.

While they weren't added to the Fortran standard until Fortran 95,
functions for doing bitwise operation were a popular non-standard
extension for many years before. MOD is also a function in Fortran,
not an operator like in C.

On the other hand exponentiation is an operator in Fortran and
a function in C.

-- glen

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

#29471

pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Phil Carmody wrote:
>  
> > Many of those other 'returns'
> > were single-handedly purged a while back, post '99, I think.
> 
> In the C90 standard, 
> the bitwise operators were described as returning values.

And C99 also described the unary & operator as returning a value.  They
were cleaned up for C11.
-- 
Larry Jones

My dreams are getting way too literal. -- Calvin

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

#29334

James Kuyper wrote:
> 
> On 11/19/2012 08:21 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
> > On 11/19/2012 06:35 AM, BartC wrote:
> ...
> >> #define lengthof(x) (sizeof(x)/sizeof(x[0]))

> That's not the
> problematic case. It's pointers that point at the first element of an
> array (such as "Hello world!") that lengthof() doesn't handle in the
> desired fashion.

I was just reading a post by Shao Miller,
with words to the effect that lengthof("Hello world!") works just fine.

I would have used a different name for the macro,
so as not to confuse the meaning of the macro
with the meaning of how the standard defines the length of a string.

What did you mean by "doesn't handle in the desired fashion" ?

-- 
pete

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

#29335

On 12/16/2012 10:50 AM, pete wrote:
> James Kuyper wrote:
>>
>> On 11/19/2012 08:21 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 11/19/2012 06:35 AM, BartC wrote:
>> ...
>>>> #define lengthof(x) (sizeof(x)/sizeof(x[0]))
>
>> That's not the
>> problematic case. It's pointers that point at the first element of an
>> array (such as "Hello world!") that lengthof() doesn't handle in the
>> desired fashion.
>
> I was just reading a post by Shao Miller,
> with words to the effect that lengthof("Hello world!") works just fine.
>
> I would have used a different name for the macro,
> so as not to confuse the meaning of the macro
> with the meaning of how the standard defines the length of a string.
>
> What did you mean by "doesn't handle in the desired fashion" ?

     This is Question 6.21 on the comp.lang.c Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQ) page, <http://www.c-faq.com/>.

-- 
Eric Sosman
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid

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

#29342

On 12/16/2012 10:50 AM, pete wrote:
> James Kuyper wrote:
>>
>> On 11/19/2012 08:21 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 11/19/2012 06:35 AM, BartC wrote:
>> ...
>>>> #define lengthof(x) (sizeof(x)/sizeof(x[0]))
> 
>> That's not the
>> problematic case. It's pointers that point at the first element of an
>> array (such as "Hello world!") that lengthof() doesn't handle in the
>> desired fashion.
> 
> I was just reading a post by Shao Miller,

I didn't see it; I've got his messages filtered out. While he
occasionally raised legitimate points (this apparently being one of
them), all too often he doesn't.

> with words to the effect that lengthof("Hello world!") works just fine.
> 
> I would have used a different name for the macro,
> so as not to confuse the meaning of the macro
> with the meaning of how the standard defines the length of a string.
> 
> What did you mean by "doesn't handle in the desired fashion" ?

Sorry - I gave a bad example. Given

	char array[] = "Hello world!";
	char *p = array;

then lengthof(p) gives lengthof(p) gives (sizeof(char*)/sizeof(char)),
while what is actually desired is (sizeof(array)/sizeof(char)).
-- 
James Kuyper

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

#28391

"James Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:k8dbp3$brj$1@dont-email.me...
> On 11/19/2012 06:35 AM, BartC wrote:
>> "fir" <profesor.fir@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:b61d20f6-568f-4239-9968-370fbd123b9c@googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> c lacks an lengthof() operator, it could be

>> #define lengthof(x) (sizeof(x)/sizeof(x[0]))

> I'm reasonably sure he's interested in an operator that could be applied
> to a pointer (not an array) to give the length of the array it points
> at. This is quite feasible, but would require pointers to carry more
> information than is currently required. You'd also have to add a feature
> to the language to create a pointer to only part of an array; lengthof()
> would then give the length of the desired part of the array, rather than
> the entire array.
>
> The key problem is that mandating support for such a feature would
> require that ALL pointers carry this information.

I think we discussed this before. My suggestion would be to have two kinds
of pointers: what we have now, and 'fat' pointers consisting of a pointer,
and a length (what I called 'slices').

This fat pointer need do nothing more than formalise what is done now, when
a pointer+length is passed, or a struct containing a pointer and length is
created, and that is passed.

But being part of the language, the (pointer,length) type can be used with
any target type, while you'd need to define a new struct for each target, or
use lots of untidy casts.

(I partly lost interest in implementing such a type for my own projects, for
this level of language. You reserve those goodies for the next level where
you can do it properly! For example, the logical next step is to have a 
flexible array type (where the size can vary, usually upwards). But for that 
purpose, a (pointer,length) type isn't enough.)

> With pointers being such a
> fundamental feature of C, that would significantly degrade the
> performance of all programs, even the ones that don't make any use of
> lengthof().

No, you'd leave ordinary pointers alone. They're used in such a variety of
ways anyway, that a length attribute would often be meaningless. (For
example when they point to an individual value; it may or may not be part of
a homogeneous set, but you don't care if it is.)

-- 
Bartc 

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

#28456

> 
> I guess that English is not your first language, so perhaps you're
> not aware that the word "stupid" is quite insulting.  I suggest
> 

I do like c in very much extent so it sound
totaly fantastic (not real( to me, I use 
called it stupidness becouse I was/am real
angry/mad to know that I cannot use const int 
in c99  and finding also explanation sort of 'consyt int x doeas not mean that x is const' 
(and the fact that i can throw c compilers to trashbin)
I feel i can call it stupidnees though some 
explanations what do I mean would be required
- I said what do I meant :(

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

#28457

so (maybe I add it) i called it stupidness
in some way especially for its 'unpleasaant' 
annoying consequences, though not giving better alternative to defines and enums also 
is not to much wise for me :( but do not matter
(i do not want to hold on this word here to 
much, maybe I shouldnt use it and use something
like 'bad thing' or 'annoying thing'

there should be also argumentation why define 
is considered bad for me but i never reflected 
on it too much, all preprocesor seem to me
like to much primitive rules tool and it is not so much bad as an external tool over c 
but is bad for me if considered as an inavoidable part of c - (and enum way is silly ) - so it is like here it is :/

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

#28463

fir wrote:
> 
> so (maybe I add it) i called it stupidness
> in some way especially for its 'unpleasaant'
> annoying consequences,
> though not giving better alternative to defines and enums also
> is not to much wise for me :( but do not matter
> (i do not want to hold on this word here to
> much, maybe I shouldnt use it and use something
> like 'bad thing' or 'annoying thing'
> 
> there should be also argumentation why define
> is considered bad for me but i never reflected
> on it too much, all preprocesor seem to me
> like to much primitive rules tool
> and it is not so much bad as an external tool over c
> but is bad for me if considered as an inavoidable part of c
> - (and enum way is silly ) - so it is like here it is :/

It is common for people to think 
that something else is stupid, 
because they can't understand it.

-- 
pete

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

#28464

W dniu wtorek, 20 listopada 2012 13:38:50 UTC+1 użytkownik pete napisał:
> fir wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > so (maybe I add it) i called it stupidness
> 
> > in some way especially for its 'unpleasaant'
> 
> > annoying consequences,
> 
> > though not giving better alternative to defines and enums also
> 
> > is not to much wise for me :( but do not matter
> 
> > (i do not want to hold on this word here to
> 
> > much, maybe I shouldnt use it and use something
> 
> > like 'bad thing' or 'annoying thing'
> 
> > 
> 
> > there should be also argumentation why define
> 
> > is considered bad for me but i never reflected
> 
> > on it too much, all preprocesor seem to me
> 
> > like to much primitive rules tool
> 
> > and it is not so much bad as an external tool over c
> 
> > but is bad for me if considered as an inavoidable part of c
> 
> > - (and enum way is silly ) - so it is like here it is :/
> 
> 
> 
> It is common for people to think 
> 
> that something else is stupid, 
> 
> because they can't understand it.
> 

I meet often such ppl that call me stupid 
(a horde of them) so I know it well - but here still this lack of other better than preprocesor and enum way seem not much wise
 to me

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

Page 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12  Next page →

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

csiph-web