Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #28322 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-11-18 01:21 -0800 |
| Last post | 2012-11-27 17:22 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 221 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
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 5 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 12 Next page →
| From | Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-19 14:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8PCdnQXqT-F4HzfNnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@bestweb.net> |
| In reply to | #28344 |
On 11/18/2012 3:22 PM, BartC wrote: > > > "Kenneth Brody" <kenbrody@spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:k6CdnWuVpab7hDTNnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@bestweb.net... [...] >> ===== file1.c >> >> const int table_max = 100; >> >> ===== file2.c >> >> extern const int table_max; >> >> .... references to "table_max" that cannot be a compile-time constant ... > > Why not? I can do this in another language (albeit using true named > constants, rather than read-only variables, although the latter can be > possible in the same way). What language allows you to define the value in one module, and compile a separate module, which makes no reference to the first module, and the compiler "knows" what the constant is? (And, if you edit and recompile the first module, changing the value of said constant, the second module magically changes the constant's value?) > In any case, the language ought to provide true named constants, which are > pretty fundamental, not expect everyone to mess around with enums, defines, > and const attributes. Then the above won't be a problem. Well, that's a different story. :-) -- Kenneth Brody
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-19 21:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <_Yxqs.598784$Ol2.28684@fx25.am4> |
| In reply to | #28409 |
"Kenneth Brody" <kenbrody@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:8PCdnQXqT-F4HzfNnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@bestweb.net... > On 11/18/2012 3:22 PM, BartC wrote: >> >> >> "Kenneth Brody" <kenbrody@spamcop.net> wrote in message >> news:k6CdnWuVpab7hDTNnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@bestweb.net... > [...] >>> ===== file1.c >>> >>> const int table_max = 100; >>> >>> ===== file2.c >>> >>> extern const int table_max; >>> >>> .... references to "table_max" that cannot be a compile-time constant >>> ... >> >> Why not? I can do this in another language (albeit using true named >> constants, rather than read-only variables, although the latter can be >> possible in the same way). > > What language allows you to define the value in one module, and compile a > separate module, which makes no reference to the first module, and the > compiler "knows" what the constant is? (And, if you edit and recompile > the first module, changing the value of said constant, the second module > magically changes the constant's value?) I gave an example of how it might work. But I don't why you find this surprising: the same sort of magic is used now in C, when changes in global variables are reflected across the whole program. And if you point out that this is a variable, whose value is only stored in a single place, then I might respond that the variable's /address/ used to access it, is a /constant/, used in a myriad places in a program, that all magically end up referring to the same location! -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-20 12:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Rfudnc4Bw9e2ITbNnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@bestweb.net> |
| In reply to | #28427 |
On 11/19/2012 4:25 PM, BartC wrote:
> "Kenneth Brody" <kenbrody@spamcop.net> wrote in message
[...]
>> What language allows you to define the value in one module, and compile a
>> separate module, which makes no reference to the first module, and the
>> compiler "knows" what the constant is? (And, if you edit and recompile
>> the first module, changing the value of said constant, the second module
>> magically changes the constant's value?)
>
> I gave an example of how it might work.
>
> But I don't why you find this surprising: the same sort of magic is used now
> in C, when changes in global variables are reflected across the whole program.
>
> And if you point out that this is a variable, whose value is only stored in
> a single place, then I might respond that the variable's /address/ used to
> access it, is a /constant/, used in a myriad places in a program, that all
> magically end up referring to the same location!
Yes, but the address of a variable is *not* a "compile-time constant". You
cannot, for example, do this (admittedly very implementation-dependent)
construct:
extern int foo;
int *pointer = &foo; // Legal
char array[(int)&foo]; // Not legal
--
Kenneth Brody
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-19 13:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <CtWdnUTsqK-3HDfNnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d@bestweb.net> |
| In reply to | #28340 |
On 11/18/2012 12:22 PM, Kenneth Brody wrote: [...] > I find it highly unlikely that this fart of the language will change, > considering the fact that you can have: [...] No, that was not an intentional typo. :-) -- Kenneth Brody
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-18 03:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7ebf13c3-f16b-42b0-a450-da00724fc075@q5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #28322 |
On Nov 18, 9:21 am, fir <profesor....@gmail.com> wrote: > It is sad to say so but there is some real > and terrible stupidnes in c99. When i wrote > programs in c (and I am involved c user) I > just use const int for array boundaries no you didn't > but > in c99 (and some previous too, terribly) all previous > it > will not compile (see for examplehttp://stackoverflow.com/questions/1712592/variably-modified-array-at... ) It is terribly wrong > thing for ppl who just wants to use const int to this > purposes and not to use preprocesor - as I do. > It is terribly stupidness in my opinion, it have to > be changed. :-) C changes pretty slowly so don't hold your breath
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-18 10:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k8b0ei$d3a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28322 |
On 11/18/2012 04:21 AM, fir wrote:
> It is sad to say so but there is some real
> and terrible stupidnes in c99. When i wrote
> programs in c (and I am involved c user) I
> just use const int for array boundaries but
> in c99 (and some previous too, terribly) it
> will not compile (see for example
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1712592/variably-modified-array-at-file-scope ) It is terribly wrong
> thing for ppl who just wants to use const int to this
> purposes and not to use preprocesor - as I do.
> It is terribly stupidness in my opinion, it have to
> be changed.
In C++, a const object initialized with a constant expression can itself
be used as a constant expression, but in C, this is not the case, and it
has never been the case. You're wrong when you claim to have previously
written C programs where such code worked. Perhaps you actually compiled
them as C++?
I like this feature of C++, and favor it's adoption in C. It would not
break any strictly conforming code, and would allows better type safety
than is provided by the C alternatives. However, describing this as a
stupid feature of C ignores the fact that C does provide perfectly
workable alternatives, such
#define CONSTANT 4
or
enum {CONSTANT=4};
Constant expressions are required in the following cases (and possibly
others that I missed):
_Alignas(CONSTANT)/*C2011*/ static struct {
unsigned bit_field:CONSTANT
} array[CONSTANT] = {
[CONSTANT/2].bit_field /*C99*/ = CONSTANT
};
enum {OTHER=CONSTANT};
case CONSTANT:
#if CONSTANT
#elif CONSTANT
_Static_assert(CONSTANT, "CONSTANT is 0"); /*C2011*/
C99 didn't make this issue any worse - in fact, C99 no longer required
the use of constant expressions for array dimensions unless the array
was defined with static storage duration (as was the case in your code)
(in C2011, constants are also required for the dimensions of arrays with
thread storage duration). When you don't use a constant expression, the
result is a Variable Length Array, as was mentioned in the title of your
stackoverflow question.
As a result, if you need to have global access to the array (which
suggests that your program is poorly designed), there is another
alternative in C99 or later:
types.h:
static const int NUM_TYPES = 4;
extern int *types;
main.c:
#include <types.h>
int *types;
int main(void)
{
int type_list[NUM_TYPES] = {
1,
2,
3,
4 };
types = type_list;
// The rest of your program.
}
Is there any reason why none of the C alternatives described above would
be acceptable for use in your program?
--
James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-18 09:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6e37296c-acf0-4fb7-8370-9ad3fe80c12e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #28336 |
this question on stack overflow was not mine, just found it ocasionally > > Is there any reason why none of the C alternatives described above would > be acceptable for use in your program? > #define is not acceptable by me I dislike using preprocessor and use only few includes (do not like it either) and nothing more of it enum would be eventually hardly acceptable but its just bad (from my aestehetic point of view), nothing else to say :<
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-18 15:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k8bfbp$fro$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28339 |
On 11/18/2012 12:11 PM, fir wrote:
> this question on stack overflow was not mine, just found it ocasionally
>
>>
>> Is there any reason why none of the C alternatives described above would
>> be acceptable for use in your program?
>>
>
> #define is not acceptable by me I dislike
> using preprocessor and use only few includes
> (do not like it either) and nothing more of it
>
> enum would be eventually hardly acceptable
> but its just bad (from my aestehetic point of
> view), nothing else to say :<
In short, "stupidity" is "whatever offends fir's delicate
aesthetic sensibilities."
Are you related to Reginald Bunthorne?
--
Eric Sosman
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-18 12:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <95e6588e-0464-4e23-b18f-c88ee17a6f94@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #28343 |
W dniu niedziela, 18 listopada 2012 21:10:33 UTC+1 użytkownik Eric Sosman napisał:
> On 11/18/2012 12:11 PM, fir wrote:
>
> > this question on stack overflow was not mine, just found it ocasionally
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >> Is there any reason why none of the C alternatives described above would
>
> >> be acceptable for use in your program?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > #define is not acceptable by me I dislike
>
> > using preprocessor and use only few includes
>
> > (do not like it either) and nothing more of it
>
> >
>
> > enum would be eventually hardly acceptable
>
> > but its just bad (from my aestehetic point of
>
> > view), nothing else to say :<
>
>
>
> In short, "stupidity" is "whatever offends fir's delicate
>
> aesthetic sensibilities."
>
>
When I wrote some messages on this group
(not many times that was my third visit here)
really I often met a ppl which I see try to make 'much effort to not understand me'
(Really, I see suc thing here)
It would be hard to explain such basic
things why
coinst int table_max = 4096;
is better than
enum { table_max = 4096 }
(this reason is not purely aesthetic but i
meant that giving up with const ints here
and go intu enums would be terrible aesthetic
failure for me) Seem terribly obvious for me,
and not seeing it end using enums here seem
to be very stupid for me
defines are not such stupid but preprocesor
can be consideren not as part of c but some
external tool to use over it (it was initialy
considered like that, check out c history note)
and i also treat it such way (as external tool
over c, with not to much use for me personally)
it is not to much speak here, just simple
thing - imo the question is how to made this
change in c language (If I would be C 'director' (I should be*) I would just
change that
* becouse I am really well prepared for this things :>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-18 21:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k8bjvf$dc4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28345 |
fir wrote: > defines are not such stupid but preprocesor > can be consideren not as part of c but <snip/> The C preprocessor is C. It is defined in the C standard. It can't be more C than that. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-18 22:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k8bkbe$avp$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #28345 |
fir wrote:
<snip>
> When I wrote some messages on this group
> (not many times that was my third visit here)
> really I often met a ppl which I see try to make 'much effort to not
> understand me'
> (Really, I see suc thing here)
>
> It would be hard to explain such basic
> things why
>
> coinst int table_max = 4096;
>
> is better than
>
> enum { table_max = 4096 }
How can one syntax error be better than another? ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-18 17:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k8blqb$qdm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28345 |
On 11/18/2012 3:52 PM, fir wrote:
> [...]
> It would be hard to explain such basic
> things why
>
> coinst int table_max = 4096;
>
> is better than
>
> enum { table_max = 4096 }
C's enum is not of much use, I'll agree: It's only an int
with lipstick, plus just enough mystery to be alluring before
one gets to know it better. I wouldn't recommend enum as a
substitute for the kind of "coinst" you desire, even if it can
sometimes be put to that use.
But where's the case that `#define table_max 4096' is
inferior to "coinst"? So far, the *only* reason that's been
put forward is "fir doesn't like it." Somehow, "I don't like
it, therefore it's stupid" doesn't sound like the sort of
proof Euclid would be proud of.
> (this reason is not purely aesthetic but i
> meant that giving up with const ints here
> and go intu enums would be terrible aesthetic
> failure for me) Seem terribly obvious for me,
> and not seeing it end using enums here seem
> to be very stupid for me
>
> defines are not such stupid but preprocesor
> can be consideren not as part of c but some
> external tool to use over it (it was initialy
> considered like that, check out c history note)
> and i also treat it such way (as external tool
> over c, with not to much use for me personally)
In the very earliest days of C, the preprocessor was in
truth a separate entity. It didn't exist until about 1972-3,
and for a while the early compilers didn't even run it on
source files that didn't appear to use it. But its integration
into the language did not take long: by 1978 we find K&R saying
"The C compiler *contains* [emphasis mine] a preprocessor" (p. 207),
not "Hey, there's this extra tool you can use if you like."
If you've been doing the arithmetic, you'll see that the
preprocessor is at most forty years old and that C's inventor
considered it as contained in the compiler as of at least
thirty-four years ago. Since the preprocessor has been part
of the language for at least eighty-five percent of its entire
existence, the assertion that it should be thought of as "some
external tool" cannot be taken seriously.
The preprocessor is a full-fledged part of the language,
and provides the solution to your problem. Just use it!
--
Eric Sosman
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-19 14:38 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <agtgstF5g44U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #28350 |
On 11/19/12 11:00, Eric Sosman wrote:
>
> But where's the case that `#define table_max 4096' is
> inferior to "coinst"? So far, the *only* reason that's been
> put forward is "fir doesn't like it." Somehow, "I don't like
> it, therefore it's stupid" doesn't sound like the sort of
> proof Euclid would be proud of.
The one that really really bugged me was attempting to debug some code
that had a excess of #define constants was the inability of the debugger
to evaluate them. At the time I ended up bunging them all in enums.
The majority of them were consecutive sequences (return codes for
example), so the enum made for a better deign. The rest ended up in a
collection of odds and sods enums. Inelegant but debugger friendly.
Another somewhat contrived example is:
#define X 42
void f( const int* p );
int main(void)
{
f(&X);
}
--
Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-18 21:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k8c4ml$eeq$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28366 |
On 11/18/2012 08:38 PM, Ian Collins wrote: ... > The one that really really bugged me was attempting to debug some code > that had a excess of #define constants was the inability of the debugger > to evaluate them. Some debuggers handle that better. I was rather pleasantly surprised the first time I accidentally made use of that feature. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-19 03:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0.1e28ea41e50659bb1534.20121119035657GMT.87r4nq9ree.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #28366 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:
> On 11/19/12 11:00, Eric Sosman wrote:
>>
>> But where's the case that `#define table_max 4096' is
>> inferior to "coinst"? So far, the *only* reason that's been
>> put forward is "fir doesn't like it." Somehow, "I don't like
>> it, therefore it's stupid" doesn't sound like the sort of
>> proof Euclid would be proud of.
<snip debug example>
> Another somewhat contrived example is:
>
> #define X 42
>
> void f( const int* p );
>
> int main(void)
> {
> f(&X);
> }
You can write f(&(int){X}); so that it will work no matter if X is a
macro, an enum name or an int object (const or otherwise).
I don't suggest this as an elegant solution, but simply as a solution
that might be useful if the situation arises in some large code base.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-18 22:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e%cqs.230864$g62.170308@fx06.am4> |
| In reply to | #28345 |
"fir" <profesor.fir@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:95e6588e-0464-4e23-b18f-c88ee17a6f94@googlegroups.com...
> W dniu niedziela, 18 listopada 2012 21:10:33 UTC+1 użytkownik Eric Sosman
> napisał:
>
>> In short, "stupidity" is "whatever offends fir's delicate
>>
>> aesthetic sensibilities."
> It would be hard to explain such basic
> things why
>
> coinst int table_max = 4096;
>
> is better than
>
> enum { table_max = 4096 }
I can see exactly why the use of enum doesn't seem satisfactory (being
designed for a different purpose, for a start).
But neither is 'const int' much better, defining an int *variable* not a
value, which by some luck happens to be usable as a compile-time value.
For some inexplicable reason, the designers of C could find no use for a
construct such as:
constant int abc = 8192;
constant double xyz = 60.7796;
whose values are *guaranteed* to be always what they say, where the names
obey normal scoping rules, and which was part of plenty of other languages.
However if you are offended by such things as enums and defines, then
there's a lot worse in the language!
C is pretty ancient and is not going to change dramatically any time soon.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-18 23:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0.b327679ae059c7cdb53a.20121118234420GMT.878v9ybhnv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #28352 |
"BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> writes: <snip> > For some inexplicable reason, the designers of C could find no use for > a construct such as: > > constant int abc = 8192; > constant double xyz = 60.7796; Of course they could see a use for such a thing, but that's not a good way to design anything. At the very least you must decide if the benefit is worth the cost. If the objective had been to face the criticism of CS types 40 years later, then C would have been a very different language, but it's goals were narrow. In that sense, C is a victim of its success. Because the target machines were quite small, the design method was (roughly speaking) to add just enough type information to a typeless language like B or BCPL to allow array indexing and struct accesses of non word sized units. You also get simplified arithmetic because the type lets you know what kind of + to use. To keep the compiler small, the decisions were (I imagine) not whether there is a use for this or that but whether there is any way to do without it. Macros provide a lot features for very little code, and they give you named constants for free. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-19 01:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vMfqs.537178$Rc7.100570@fx04.am4> |
| In reply to | #28359 |
"Ben Bacarisse" <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote in message news:0.b327679ae059c7cdb53a.20121118234420GMT.878v9ybhnv.fsf@bsb.me.uk... > "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> For some inexplicable reason, the designers of C could find no use for >> a construct such as: >> >> constant int abc = 8192; >> constant double xyz = 60.7796; > To keep the compiler small, the decisions were (I imagine) not whether > there is a use for this or that but whether there is any way to do > without it. Macros provide a lot features for very little code, and > they give you named constants for free. I've remarked before that I believe the development of C has been held back *because* of it's macro language. Whenever any change or enhancement is proposed, there is usually some way to achieve the same with a macro. Usually not very elegantly either! -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-18 14:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ln6252h7sv.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #28345 |
fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> When I wrote some messages on this group (not many times that was my
> third visit here) really I often met a ppl which I see try to make
> 'much effort to not understand me' (Really, I see suc thing here)
>
> It would be hard to explain such basic things why
>
> coinst int table_max = 4096;
>
> is better than
>
> enum { table_max = 4096 }
>
> (this reason is not purely aesthetic but i meant that giving up with
> const ints here and go intu enums would be terrible aesthetic failure
> for me) Seem terribly obvious for me, and not seeing it end using
> enums here seem to be very stupid for me
In my opinion, the difference *is* purely esthetic (apart from the
fact that the "const" version doesn't work in C).
I guess that English is not your first language, so perhaps you're
not aware that the word "stupid" is quite insulting. I suggest
not using it in a technical discussion like this. (No offense;
your English is certainly better than my own nonexistent Polish.)
Despite the similarity of the words "const" and "constant",
they're really not the same thing in C. A "constant expression"
is, roughly, an expression that can be evaluated at compile time,
and that can be used where you'd use a literal constant like 42.
(I say "roughly" because the language defines which expressions
are to be treated as constant expressions; there are expressions
that a particular compiler *can* evaluate at compile time that
don't qualify. It's necessary to have a consistent definition for
all compilers; the set of constant expressions doesn't expand as
compilers become more clever.)
The keyword "const", on the other hand, really means "read-only";
it means that an object's value may not be modified after it's been
created and initialized. For example, this:
const time_t now = time(NULL);
srand(now);
const int r = rand();
is perfectly valid, even though the compiler cannot possibly
determine the values of "now" and "r" before the program executes.
It just means that, for example, "r++" is not allowed.
C++ has added a special-case rule, that if an object is declared
"const" (read-only), and its initialization is a constant expression,
then the object's name can be used as a constant expression.
(I'm probably not stating the rule *quite* correctly, but that's
close enough.)
> defines are not such stupid but preprocesor can be consideren not as
> part of c but some external tool to use over it (it was initialy
> considered like that, check out c history note) and i also treat it
> such way (as external tool over c, with not to much use for me
> personally)
Any program that uses any header (<stdio.h>, <stdlib.h>, etc.) must
use the preprocessor. The preprocessor is absolutely part of the
language; it's defined that way by the ISO C standard. You can't
avoid it. If you dislike the preprocessor that much, perhaps you'd
prefer some other language.
[...]
You'd like C to permit the name of a const-defined object as a
constant expression, as C does. I think most of us agree with you.
But the plain fact is that C doesn't support that, and it's not
going to any time soon.
You have two and only two options:
1. Use C.
2. Don't use C.
Make your choice and move on.
--
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 | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-18 15:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <59fc7aec-db2e-4ad5-8b38-fa5850a94dd8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #28353 |
W dniu niedziela, 18 listopada 2012 23:20:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Keith Thompson napisał: > [skip] > > Make your choice and move on. > Can add one thing - I wrote about this shocking thing that I cannot use const int with array definietion (this disability is quite shocking and unpleasanyt for me) How can it (it is parametrization of array sizes) be done in other general ways is yet different question (but do not matter now, I rethink it and maybe write on it l8r)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web