Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #42596 > unrolled thread
| Started by | partremmaps@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-04-05 13:07 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-04-07 23:48 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 142 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" partremmaps@gmail.com - 2014-04-05 13:07 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-05 13:55 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-05 14:14 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-06 22:18 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-06 13:28 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-06 16:35 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-07 08:55 +1200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-06 23:30 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-07 10:12 +1200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-06 18:22 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-05 14:30 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-05 22:39 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-06 22:27 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-07 08:52 +1200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-06 23:20 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-07 02:17 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-06 19:00 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-07 04:44 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-07 10:15 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-07 18:32 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-07 18:47 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Alain Ketterlin <alain@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> - 2014-04-07 11:39 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-07 08:58 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-07 19:34 +1200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-07 09:41 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-07 21:45 +1200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-07 11:03 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-07 12:54 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-07 13:48 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-07 15:27 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-07 23:00 +1200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-07 11:31 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-04-07 07:24 -0500
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-07 15:02 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-07 10:19 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-07 12:43 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-07 13:27 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-07 15:16 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-07 14:43 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-07 16:44 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-07 16:52 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-07 12:53 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-07 12:59 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-07 18:12 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2014-04-07 18:27 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-08 23:22 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-08 18:44 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-09 00:22 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-08 09:39 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-08 23:27 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-09 10:52 +1200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-09 00:24 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-09 11:32 +1200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-09 08:58 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-08 19:54 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-09 00:41 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-08 23:05 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-08 18:24 -0500
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-08 19:39 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-08 22:41 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-09 09:16 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-09 07:27 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-09 15:32 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-09 08:32 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-10 11:03 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-10 07:27 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-10 14:02 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-10 08:34 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-10 16:36 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-10 12:58 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-09 11:36 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-09 18:36 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-09 14:11 -0500
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-10 13:55 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-09 02:35 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-08 23:05 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-09 09:45 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-09 08:19 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2014-04-10 09:08 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-10 02:57 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2014-04-10 11:50 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Seungbeom Kim <musiphil@bawi.org> - 2014-04-10 11:37 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-10 14:52 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-10 18:53 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-10 19:36 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-10 15:59 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-10 20:12 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-10 16:18 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-11 10:24 -0500
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-11 14:36 -0500
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2014-05-25 16:44 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-10 12:47 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-10 16:05 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-10 13:34 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-10 16:59 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-10 16:01 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-14 21:24 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-14 21:36 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-15 05:26 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-15 07:18 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-18 09:01 -0700
Please ignore trolls Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2014-04-09 15:26 +0200
Re: Please ignore trolls David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-09 15:38 +0200
Re: Please ignore trolls James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-09 12:02 -0400
Re: Please ignore trolls Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-09 19:18 +0000
Re: Please ignore trolls "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-10 20:18 +0100
Re: Please ignore trolls James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-10 15:49 -0400
Re: Please ignore trolls gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-04-10 20:14 +0000
Re: Please ignore trolls "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-11 14:35 +0100
Re: Please ignore trolls Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-11 07:35 -0700
Re: Please ignore trolls "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-11 15:51 +0100
Re: Please ignore trolls Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2014-04-12 15:48 +0000
Re: Please ignore trolls Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-10 21:16 +0000
Re: Please ignore trolls "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-12 15:35 +0100
Re: Please ignore trolls Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-09 08:03 -0700
Re: Please ignore trolls gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-04-09 15:25 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-09 21:28 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-10 08:39 +1200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-09 23:38 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-10 02:07 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2014-04-09 05:18 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-09 08:05 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-07 08:33 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-07 17:16 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-07 11:07 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-08 09:49 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-08 20:33 +1200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-08 12:31 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-08 21:59 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-08 07:37 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-08 08:35 -0500
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Seungbeom Kim <musiphil@bawi.org> - 2014-04-08 11:30 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-08 23:46 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-08 18:28 -0500
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Seungbeom Kim <musiphil@bawi.org> - 2014-04-08 17:21 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-09 09:07 +0100
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-09 07:22 -0400
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-06 16:25 -0700
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-07 02:22 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2014-04-06 06:08 +0000
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2014-04-06 08:54 +0200
Re: Is enum a suitable way to implement a "local define?" partremmaps@gmail.com - 2014-04-07 23:48 -0700
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-18 09:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnvbu6lj8t.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #42957 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: > On 04/15/2014 01:26 AM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: >> Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > ... >>> Not exactly right. An address constant is a form of constant >>> expression, but it can't be evaluated at compile time. It is >>> evaluated before program execution begins but AFAIK it is not >>> required to be fixed even after linking is done. > > <nit-pick> Some address constants (namely, null pointers) can be > evaluated at compile time.</nit-pick> Right! I should have double checked before posting. <counter-nit-pick>In most (okay, probably all) implmentations, null pointer constants can be evaluated at compile time, but I believe the Standard does not /require/ them to be evaluable at compile time.</counter-nit-pick>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-09 15:26 +0200 |
| Subject | Please ignore trolls |
| Message-ID | <li3hof$ddk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #42713 |
David Brown wrote: > You are arguing for language extensions, and you don't even understand > the basics of C as it is? Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! You have to hand it to him, "BartC" is very effective at what he does (trolling, that is). Just look at how many replies he elicits in this very thread! And after all this time, he still doesn't get C, FFS! It's hard to ignore him when so many people reply to him. Think of the children!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-09 15:38 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Please ignore trolls |
| Message-ID | <li3ig0$isa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #42729 |
On 09/04/14 15:26, Noob wrote: > David Brown wrote: > >> You are arguing for language extensions, and you don't even understand >> the basics of C as it is? > > Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! > > You have to hand it to him, "BartC" is very effective at what he does > (trolling, that is). Just look at how many replies he elicits in this > very thread! And after all this time, he still doesn't get C, FFS! > > It's hard to ignore him when so many people reply to him. > > Think of the children! > I don't think BartC is a troll, and I think he raises some interesting points. Sometimes he misunderstands parts of C, and is quick to suggest improvements or extensions when the issue is actually already covered in C, or when they would conflict with key features of C. When that happens, my aim is to help him - just as others here have helped me when I have had questions or got things wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-09 12:02 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Please ignore trolls |
| Message-ID | <53456F04.9030807@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #42731 |
On 04/09/2014 09:38 AM, David Brown wrote: ... > I don't think BartC is a troll, and I think he raises some interesting > points. Sometimes he misunderstands parts of C, and is quick to suggest > improvements or extensions when the issue is actually already covered in > C, or when they would conflict with key features of C. When that > happens, my aim is to help him - just as others here have helped me when > I have had questions or got things wrong. I've found BartC's messages annoying, sufficiently so that I've considered adding him to my message filters - but I don't think "troll" is a correct description for the reason I'm annoyed by those messages. He has his own ideas about what a good programming language is like, which embody a very different philosophy that that used to design C. He is working to implement those ideas in C. None of that would be a problem, except that: * He doesn't know C well enough to do a good job of implementing his own language. That makes it a very odd choice, unless it's the language he understands best, it which case it's odd that he feels competent to design his own language. * Many of his criticisms of C reflect his ignorance of the language. * He tends to think of his own language design preferences as being superior to the conflicting preferences behind the design of C, rather than being simply alternative preferences. There's room in the IT world for many different languages with many widely different styles; his criticisms are seldom worded in a way that reflects awareness of that fact. * Most annoying, he'll frequently say things that are actually about his language, in contexts where any reasonable person, knowing this is "comp.lang.c", would expect his comments to be referring to C. Often, the only clue that he's not talking about C is that his comments don't correctly describe C - but that's unfortunately not a reliable way of distinguishing them from his comments that are actually intended to be about C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-09 19:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Please ignore trolls |
| Message-ID | <20140409120609.741@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #42731 |
On 2014-04-09, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 09/04/14 15:26, Noob wrote: >> David Brown wrote: >> >>> You are arguing for language extensions, and you don't even understand >>> the basics of C as it is? >> >> Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! >> >> You have to hand it to him, "BartC" is very effective at what he does >> (trolling, that is). Just look at how many replies he elicits in this >> very thread! And after all this time, he still doesn't get C, FFS! >> >> It's hard to ignore him when so many people reply to him. >> >> Think of the children! >> > > I don't think BartC is a troll, and I think he raises some interesting > points. BartC seems to be here to discuss the features of some other language than C, which he is working on, with the evident side goal of avoiding learning C as much as possible while proposing improvements to it. No concrete, complete spec of the other language is ever given, so it is impossible to discuss properly; this aspect keeps the discussions quasi-topical, allowing the focus to stay on BartC's years-long learning disability with regard to C. BartC is somewhat like a higher-level Bill Cunningham. (And note how the initials of both characters are B.C.!) There are strong parallels in the trolling theme: a person who is toying with some projects that don't seem to advance from year to year (as far as we can glean their status from the fleeting descriptions), and who exhibits anterograde amnesia with regard to absorbing new material from other posters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-10 20:18 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Please ignore trolls |
| Message-ID | <C8C1v.78930$S44.50265@fx36.am4> |
| In reply to | #42741 |
"Kaz Kylheku" <kaz@kylheku.com> wrote in message news:20140409120609.741@kylheku.com... > On 2014-04-09, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> I don't think BartC is a troll, and I think he raises some interesting >> points. > BartC seems to be here to discuss the features of some other language than > C, > which he is working on, with the evident side goal of avoiding learning C > as > much as possible while proposing improvements to it. > > No concrete, complete spec of the other language is ever given, so it is > impossible to discuss properly; this aspect keeps the discussions > quasi-topical, allowing the focus to stay on BartC's years-long learning > disability with regard to C. > BartC is somewhat like a higher-level Bill Cunningham. Thanks. > (And note how the initials of both characters are B.C.!) That's very interesting. > There are strong parallels in the trolling theme: a person who is toying > with > some projects that don't seem to advance from year to year (as far as we > can > glean their status from the fleeting descriptions), and who exhibits > anterograde amnesia with regard to absorbing new material from other > posters. I wrote my first compiler (a very simple one for a machine-oriented language for the PDP10) in 1980 while a student. I've been designing my own languages and creating my own compilers, all from scratch, since 1981. Those early static languages had paralleled much of C, and were for the same sorts of purposes, but used entirely different syntax. I switched to using C's runtime since around 1997 I think. I've been dependent on an actual C compiler since 2012, in a project which was a thin syntax wrapper around C. A new project completed earlier this year which was an independent language, but targets high-level C code. (I am upgrading that again so that it generates native code directly, because C is giving me too many headaches.) So as a designer of a set of languages with similar aims to C, and as a compiler writer, and also now as user of the language (for a brief period when I had to write it, and now when I have to generate it), I think I am entitled to my opinions, and also that I qualified to some extent in giving constructive criticisms. I do find some of C's decisions exasperating (it's type syntax, the lack of a named constant feature (one of the simplest you could think of!), its idiosyncratic for-statement etc etc), because I know how easy it would have been to implement them properly. As for my projects: I have two language projects: "X" (not its real name), a dynamic language, with a compiler written in X. It has an interpreter "I" now written in Y, a static language. Y's compiler is written in X, the output at present is raw C. It has some help (with interfacing) from a hybrid language B (its real name), which is a wrapper around C, and whose output is also raw C. Confused? You should be! Anyway these languages and compiler projects really exist, and they work. Why do I still post in comp.lang.c? I think that as a C 'outsider' I can offer a somewhat different, perhaps irreverent point of view compared with the the usual guys. Look at my first post in this thread, and tell me how much of that was about my own stuff. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-10 15:49 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Please ignore trolls |
| Message-ID | <5346F5D3.5050007@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #42772 |
On 04/10/2014 03:18 PM, BartC wrote: ... > So as a designer of a set of languages with similar aims to C, and as a > compiler writer, and also now as user of the language (for a brief period > when I had to write it, and now when I have to generate it), I think I am > entitled to my opinions, and also that I qualified to some extent in giving > constructive criticisms. Your lack of knowledge of and experience with C limits the extent to which you are so qualified. When you just recently became aware of a feature of C because it caused your code generator to produce malfunctioning code, it's a little early to criticize that feature (I'm not referring to any specific feature here, but rather to any one of several different features you've criticized in the past). It's understandable why you would want to blame the design of C for not being what you would consider appropriate, but the criticism would be better received if it had been the result of spending many years working within that design, and having a corresponding awareness of it's costs and benefits. > Why do I still post in comp.lang.c? I think that as a C 'outsider' I can > offer a somewhat different, perhaps irreverent point of view compared with > the the usual guys. ... Your outsider point of view would be of greater interest if it were better informed. Irreverence isn't a problem in itself, none of us here worship at the altar of the almighty standard, claims by trolls to the contrary notwithstanding. But criticisms based upon a solid understand of what the standard actually says, and informed by a fair amount of experience working with the feature, would be much better received.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-10 20:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Please ignore trolls |
| Message-ID | <li6u2m$dcl$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #42775 |
In article <5346F5D3.5050007@verizon.net>, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote: ... >Your outsider point of view pisses me off and makes me feel small and >unmasculine. That's why I take every opportunity to belittle you here in >this forum. Heresy to the one true standard is and always will be dealt >with severely in this forum - as we continue to worship at the altar of >the almighty standard. Therefore, you'd best keep your criticisms to >yourself and not bother usa (your betters) or try to contradict our >interpretation of what the standard actually says. I hope this better >informs you of what it means to have experience working with a feature. >Maybe in future, you will be much better received. I am hopeful that >there may be hope for you yet. Sad, isn't it? -- First of all, I do not appreciate your playing stupid here at all. - Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn -
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-11 14:35 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Please ignore trolls |
| Message-ID | <xpS1v.329966$b91.189434@fx28.am4> |
| In reply to | #42780 |
"Kenny McCormack" <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote in message news:li6u2m$dcl$1@news.xmission.com... > In article <5346F5D3.5050007@verizon.net>, > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote: > ... >>Your outsider point of view pisses me off and makes me feel small and >>unmasculine. That's why I take every opportunity to belittle you here in >>this forum. Heresy to the one true standard is and always will be dealt >>with severely in this forum - as we continue to worship at the altar of >>the almighty standard. Therefore, you'd best keep your criticisms to >>yourself and not bother usa (your betters) or try to contradict our >>interpretation of what the standard actually says. I hope this better >>informs you of what it means to have experience working with a feature. >>Maybe in future, you will be much better received. I am hopeful that >>there may be hope for you yet. > > Sad, isn't it? Ha! I read your post first... But I guess I will have to find or devise my own alternative to C anyway, as it doesn't look like I'm going to get much more help here. The trouble is that pesky language gets everywhere. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-11 07:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Please ignore trolls |
| Message-ID | <a0fc9222-d12c-47b3-a5fa-afbb9e6b2115@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42804 |
On Friday, April 11, 2014 2:35:02 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote: > " > But I guess I will have to find or devise my own alternative to C anyway, as > it doesn't look like I'm going to get much more help here. > > The trouble is that pesky language gets everywhere. > C is a sort of universal low-level bit bashing language. So most other languages have facilities for calling C functions. Whilst C has a few glitches, basically you can have either efficiency, which means raw address writes, or you can have safety, which means bounds checking. It's very hard to write an efficient languages that is also safe. Most good programmers try to program a language at some point. I've done it myself. But it's very hard to get a language accepted in the marketplace.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-11 15:51 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Please ignore trolls |
| Message-ID | <lkT1v.168190$T32.142646@fx21.am4> |
| In reply to | #42805 |
"Malcolm McLean" <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:a0fc9222-d12c-47b3-a5fa-afbb9e6b2115@googlegroups.com... > On Friday, April 11, 2014 2:35:02 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote: >> " >> But I guess I will have to find or devise my own alternative to C anyway, >> as >> it doesn't look like I'm going to get much more help here. >> >> The trouble is that pesky language gets everywhere. >> > C is a sort of universal low-level bit bashing language. So most other > languages have facilities for > calling C functions. It tends to get used to describe interfaces. So the Win32 API for example is documented using C function prototypes, C structs, and C macros (with an MS slant on things; and they now call it C++ but it's still C). To interface to that from your own language you need to know exactly what a struct means, the exact widths of the numeric types, the exact amount of padding used, etc etc. In general, you want to use a library, it's written in C, comes in a binary LIB form, and might have a header containing the functions, types and data structures used; however this is not usually designed to be human readable, you're expected to be using a C compiler (sometimes a particular compiler, set of options, etc). I remember trying to read STDAFX.H, and it was totally impossible. Binary APIs are needed not APIs geared to a specific language. You have to get involved in C source even if you have no intention of writing any yourself. > Most good programmers try to program a language at some point. I've done > it myself. But it's very > hard to get a language accepted in the marketplace. I wouldn't even bother trying. These are for my own use. But one or two have been part of my applications and I've produced user manuals for those. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-12 15:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Please ignore trolls |
| Message-ID | <slrnlkio35.hu4.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #42806 |
On Fri, 2014-04-11, BartC wrote: ... > In general, you want to use a library, it's written in C, comes in a binary > LIB form, and might have a header containing the functions, types and data > structures used; however this is not usually designed to be human readable, > you're expected to be using a C compiler (sometimes a particular compiler, > set of options, etc). > > I remember trying to read STDAFX.H, and it was totally impossible. I can understand that, given that it's part of the worst part of Windows. That means it's not representative. > Binary APIs are needed not APIs geared to a specific language. You > have to get involved in C source even if you have no intention of > writing any yourself. All important libraries written in C are available in other languages, so I don't see a desperate need for some new sort of API. There are enough people who are able and willing to read C code. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-10 21:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Please ignore trolls |
| Message-ID | <20140410141426.50@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #42772 |
On 2014-04-10, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > I wrote my first compiler (a very simple one for a machine-oriented language > for the PDP10) in 1980 while a student. > > I've been designing my own languages and creating my own compilers, all from > scratch, since 1981. So you should be able to chew up a language specification and spit it out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-12 15:35 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Please ignore trolls |
| Message-ID | <Qfc2v.184825$G64.131878@fx25.am4> |
| In reply to | #42789 |
"Kaz Kylheku" <kaz@kylheku.com> wrote in message news:20140410141426.50@kylheku.com... > On 2014-04-10, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> I wrote my first compiler (a very simple one for a machine-oriented >> language >> for the PDP10) in 1980 while a student. >> >> I've been designing my own languages and creating my own compilers, all >> from >> scratch, since 1981. > > So you should be able to chew up a language specification and spit it out. I'm not here to sell anything, and I don't like pushing my own projects. If the discussion is about how a C-related language feature can or can't be implemented, then I might use my own work as an example (especially if I've already implemented it and it works just fine! Or maybe it didn't work so well, then I can give the benefit of my experience). There is absolutely no reason to give out, in a C group, complete language specs for what are private and/or experimental projects. I'm interested in discussing elements of language design, which often crops up in this group, and that's it. And in the case of my current projects, these started off a few months ago as a common *syntax* to be used as a way of writing mainstream languages (I experimented with Python, Lisp, and Lua as well as C and C-style languages). So there was no specification as such, as that depended on the target. Anyway, that project evolved (because I didn't want to write using other people's languages, even using my syntax!) into two, more specialised branches. One was to target my own interpreted bytecode language, which works extremely well. The other was to target C, which also worked reasonably well, but with many problems (such as not being able to trap many classes of errors early enough). That project then became an independent language, still generating C, but having its own type system for error checking. I've put together a very brief spec for this one, detailing only its data types and saying something about its type system, and that's here: http://pastebin.com/cnTkv1H0 Comparison with C may or may not be of interest. (Any discussion about that, best somewhere else such as comp.lang.misc.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-09 08:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Please ignore trolls |
| Message-ID | <lnd2gqbl40.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #42729 |
Noob <root@127.0.0.1> writes:
> David Brown wrote:
>> You are arguing for language extensions, and you don't even understand
>> the basics of C as it is?
>
> Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
>
> You have to hand it to him, "BartC" is very effective at what he does
> (trolling, that is). Just look at how many replies he elicits in this
> very thread! And after all this time, he still doesn't get C, FFS!
>
> It's hard to ignore him when so many people reply to him.
>
> Think of the children!
We have no shortage of genuine trolls here. I don't think BartC is one
of them.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-09 15:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Please ignore trolls |
| Message-ID | <li3op7$lgn$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #42732 |
In article <lnd2gqbl40.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: >Noob <root@127.0.0.1> writes: >> David Brown wrote: >>> You are arguing for language extensions, and you don't even understand >>> the basics of C as it is? >> >> Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! >> >> You have to hand it to him, "BartC" is very effective at what he does >> (trolling, that is). Just look at how many replies he elicits in this >> very thread! And after all this time, he still doesn't get C, FFS! >> >> It's hard to ignore him when so many people reply to him. >> >> Think of the children! > >We have no shortage of genuine trolls here. I don't think BartC is one >of them. http://flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/android.htm -- Watching ConservaLoons playing with statistics and facts is like watching a newborn play with a computer. Endlessly amusing, but totally unproductive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-09 21:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.6e161a30659460798e42.20140409212804BST.878ureqmcr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #42713 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
<snip>
> "const" is not a hint to the compiler about variables - it is a
> specific direction that this object will be constant, and will never
> be changed. (It is /possible/ to do so using casts, but the result is
> clearly undefined behaviour, and cannot be achieved by accident due to
> the explicit casts needed, and all the compiler error messages and/or
> diagnostic warnings.)
That's largely true, but there are a few "holes" in the type system.
You *can* modify a const object without any casts, for example like
this:
const int c = 0;
int *ip = memchr(&c, 0, 1);
*ip = 42;
The result is still undefined, of course, but you do sometimes see bugs
caused by the inadvertent loss of const this way.
By the way, I agree with what you are saying overall and const vs. a new
constant declaration. The whole trend on modern programming language
design is towards clever compilers and expressive languages.
<snip>
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-10 08:39 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <bqlpf5F4creU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #42743 |
Ben Bacarisse wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > <snip> >> "const" is not a hint to the compiler about variables - it is a >> specific direction that this object will be constant, and will never >> be changed. (It is /possible/ to do so using casts, but the result is >> clearly undefined behaviour, and cannot be achieved by accident due to >> the explicit casts needed, and all the compiler error messages and/or >> diagnostic warnings.) > > That's largely true, but there are a few "holes" in the type system. > You *can* modify a const object without any casts, for example like > this: > > const int c = 0; > int *ip = memchr(&c, 0, 1); > *ip = 42; C++ had to go through a few hoops to fix this particular library bug! -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-09 23:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20140409163612.835@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #42745 |
On 2014-04-09, Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> <snip> >>> "const" is not a hint to the compiler about variables - it is a >>> specific direction that this object will be constant, and will never >>> be changed. (It is /possible/ to do so using casts, but the result is >>> clearly undefined behaviour, and cannot be achieved by accident due to >>> the explicit casts needed, and all the compiler error messages and/or >>> diagnostic warnings.) >> >> That's largely true, but there are a few "holes" in the type system. >> You *can* modify a const object without any casts, for example like >> this: >> >> const int c = 0; >> int *ip = memchr(&c, 0, 1); >> *ip = 42; > > C++ had to go through a few hoops to fix this particular library bug! I believe C added holes to void * when it was borrowed from C++. The fix is simple: don't allow conversions out of void * without a cast. No big hoop.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-10 02:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.10b3afe97b66ae987363.20140410020717BST.8738hmq9fe.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #42747 |
Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> writes: > On 2014-04-09, Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>> <snip> >>>> "const" is not a hint to the compiler about variables - it is a >>>> specific direction that this object will be constant, and will never >>>> be changed. (It is /possible/ to do so using casts, but the result is >>>> clearly undefined behaviour, and cannot be achieved by accident due to >>>> the explicit casts needed, and all the compiler error messages and/or >>>> diagnostic warnings.) >>> >>> That's largely true, but there are a few "holes" in the type system. >>> You *can* modify a const object without any casts, for example like >>> this: >>> >>> const int c = 0; >>> int *ip = memchr(&c, 0, 1); >>> *ip = 42; >> >> C++ had to go through a few hoops to fix this particular library bug! > > I believe C added holes to void * when it was borrowed from C++. > > The fix is simple: don't allow conversions out of void * without a > cast. The makes the hole smaller, but the problem is that various library function strip the const qualifier from the returned pointer. Simply removing void * from the language would not be enough if functions like strchr still return at char * rather than a const char *. You'd only be able to modify a char object without a cast, but the hole would still not be closed. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web