Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #43061 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-04-18 11:45 +0100 |
| Last post | 2014-04-21 09:08 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 280 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-18 11:45 +0100
Re: Constant strings Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-04-18 07:34 -0400
Re: Constant strings G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2014-04-18 05:23 -0700
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-18 17:16 +0100
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-18 11:08 -0700
Re: Constant strings G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2014-04-18 13:11 -0700
Re: Constant strings James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-18 10:21 -0400
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-18 08:45 -0700
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-18 16:48 +0100
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-18 09:21 -0700
Re: Constant strings Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-19 09:09 +1200
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-18 23:53 +0100
Re: Constant strings Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-18 23:06 +0000
Re: Constant strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-19 03:57 -0700
Re: Constant strings Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-19 23:41 +1200
Re: Constant strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-19 06:21 -0700
Re: Constant strings Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2014-04-19 10:04 -0700
Re: Constant strings Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2014-04-19 16:54 -0700
Re: Constant strings Seungbeom Kim <musiphil@bawi.org> - 2014-04-19 17:54 -0700
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-19 13:20 -0700
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-19 23:32 +0100
Re: Constant strings Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-19 23:38 +0000
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-19 17:28 -0700
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-20 10:53 +0100
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-20 14:29 -0700
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-20 23:41 +0100
Re: Constant strings Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-21 11:14 +1200
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-21 13:05 +0100
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-21 11:11 -0700
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-20 19:44 -0700
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-21 10:51 +0100
Re: Constant strings James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-21 13:29 -0400
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-21 11:04 -0700
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-22 11:31 +0100
Re: Constant strings Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-22 06:24 -0500
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-22 13:34 +0100
Re: Constant strings James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-22 09:19 -0400
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-22 15:00 +0100
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-22 07:53 -0700
Re: Constant strings James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-22 12:48 -0400
Re: Constant strings James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-22 07:28 -0400
Re: Constant strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-22 05:46 -0700
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-22 07:45 -0700
Re: Constant strings Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2014-04-22 16:34 +0000
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-22 10:10 -0700
Re: Constant strings Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-22 11:50 -0500
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-22 18:48 +0100
Re: Constant strings James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-22 14:02 -0400
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-22 19:48 +0100
Re: Constant strings James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-22 15:28 -0400
Re: Constant strings Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-22 19:48 -0500
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-23 11:56 +0100
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-23 12:59 +0100
Re: Constant strings James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-23 08:21 -0400
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-23 14:09 +0100
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-23 14:19 +0100
Re: Constant strings James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-23 08:40 -0400
Re: Constant strings James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-23 11:56 -0400
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-23 11:10 -0700
Re: Constant strings Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-23 19:19 -0500
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-23 19:19 -0700
Re: Constant strings Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-23 23:53 -0500
Re: Constant strings glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-24 11:55 +0000
Re: Constant strings Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-24 11:27 -0500
Re: Constant strings glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-24 20:03 +0000
Re: Constant strings Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-24 17:16 -0500
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-23 17:39 +0100
Re: Constant strings James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-23 13:06 -0400
Re: Constant strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-23 10:25 -0700
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-23 11:30 -0700
Re: Constant strings glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-23 20:55 +0000
Re: Constant strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-23 21:53 -0700
Re: Constant strings Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-24 17:05 +1200
Re: Constant strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-24 00:59 -0700
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-23 18:39 +0100
Re: Constant strings James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-23 14:53 -0400
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-23 21:09 +0100
Re: Constant strings James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-23 19:23 -0400
Re: Constant strings Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-25 10:52 -0500
Re: Constant strings Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-23 19:36 -0500
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-24 10:37 +0100
Re: Constant strings James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-24 07:45 -0400
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-24 13:15 +0100
Re: Constant strings Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-24 08:33 -0500
Re: Constant strings James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-24 09:47 -0400
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-24 15:09 +0100
Re: Constant strings James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-24 12:07 -0400
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-24 18:23 +0100
Re: Constant strings James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-24 14:49 -0400
Re: Constant strings Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-24 13:48 -0500
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-24 12:32 -0700
Re: Constant strings Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-24 23:57 -0500
Re: Constant strings James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-25 08:31 -0400
Re: Constant strings Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-25 09:51 -0500
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-25 16:45 +0100
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-25 09:07 -0700
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-25 17:33 +0100
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-25 11:38 -0700
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-25 11:42 -0700
Re: Constant strings Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-25 10:58 -0500
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-25 11:29 -0700
Re: Constant strings James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-25 15:10 -0400
Re: Constant strings Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-25 19:06 -0500
Re: Constant strings James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-26 05:39 -0400
Re: Constant strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-26 04:07 -0700
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-26 12:50 +0100
Re: Constant strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-26 05:03 -0700
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-26 11:23 -0700
Re: Constant strings gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-04-26 19:13 +0000
Re: Constant strings Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2014-04-26 23:54 +0200
Re: Constant strings Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-04-26 18:47 -0400
Re: Constant strings glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-26 23:01 +0000
Re: Constant strings Seungbeom Kim <musiphil@bawi.org> - 2014-04-26 18:09 -0700
Re: Constant strings gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-04-27 01:22 +0000
Re: Constant strings Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2014-04-27 04:09 +0200
Re: Constant strings David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2014-05-25 16:44 -0400
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-05-25 14:43 -0700
Re: Constant strings Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2014-04-27 04:09 +0200
Re: Constant strings glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-27 05:36 +0000
Re: Constant strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-27 06:42 -0700
Re: Constant strings Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-27 02:42 +0000
Re: Constant strings Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2014-04-27 04:45 +0200
Re: Constant strings Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-27 14:13 -0500
Re: Constant strings glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-27 20:11 +0000
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-28 03:22 +0100
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-28 10:00 +0100
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-28 11:24 +0100
Re: Constant strings glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-28 12:30 +0000
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-28 13:58 +0100
Re: Constant strings glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-28 12:22 +0000
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-28 08:53 -0700
Re: Constant strings gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-04-28 16:10 +0000
Re: Constant strings Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-28 18:11 +0000
Re: Constant strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-28 11:34 -0700
Re: Constant strings glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-28 19:01 +0000
Re: Constant strings glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-28 11:06 +0000
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-28 12:48 +0100
Re: Constant strings Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-04-28 08:11 -0400
Re: Constant strings Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-28 14:04 +0000
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-28 12:55 +0100
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-28 13:23 +0100
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-28 13:47 +0100
Re: Constant strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-28 06:01 -0700
Re: Constant strings Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-29 08:43 +1200
Re: Constant strings Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-28 21:08 +0000
Re: Constant strings Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-29 09:32 +1200
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-28 22:41 +0100
Re: Constant strings Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-28 22:00 +0000
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-28 23:18 +0100
Re: Constant strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-28 15:43 -0700
Re: Constant strings glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-28 23:23 +0000
Re: Constant strings Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-28 22:47 +0000
Re: Constant strings glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-28 23:17 +0000
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-29 01:18 +0100
Re: Constant strings Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-29 00:31 +0000
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-29 01:58 +0100
Re: Constant strings Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-29 01:13 +0000
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-29 03:19 +0100
Re: Constant strings glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-29 03:31 +0000
Re: Constant strings Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-29 04:21 +0000
Re: Constant strings glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-29 04:29 +0000
Re: Constant strings Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2014-04-29 09:14 +0200
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-29 14:05 +0100
Re: Constant strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-29 00:37 -0700
Re: Constant strings Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2014-04-29 13:36 +0200
Re: Constant strings ralph <nt_consulting@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-29 07:49 -0500
Re: Constant strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-29 06:28 -0700
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-29 07:37 -0700
Re: Constant strings David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-29 17:15 +0200
Re: Constant strings glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-29 20:58 +0000
Re: Constant strings David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-30 10:16 +0200
Re: Constant strings Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-29 16:04 +0000
Re: Constant strings gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-04-29 16:10 +0000
Re: Constant strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-29 09:58 -0700
Re: Constant strings Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2014-04-30 12:46 +0200
Re: Constant strings glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-29 14:51 +0000
Re: Constant strings Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-29 16:05 +0000
Re: Constant strings glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-29 01:53 +0000
Re: Constant strings glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-28 23:11 +0000
Re: Constant strings Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-28 23:29 +0000
Re: Constant strings glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-29 00:18 +0000
Re: Constant strings Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-28 21:52 +0000
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-28 23:08 +0100
Re: Constant strings Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-28 22:31 +0000
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-29 00:54 +0100
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-28 23:10 +0100
Re: Constant strings Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-29 11:28 +1200
Re: Constant strings gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-04-27 06:31 +0000
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-26 12:27 +0100
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-26 13:11 +0100
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-26 13:50 +0100
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-26 11:26 -0700
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-27 02:21 +0100
Re: Constant strings Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-26 08:05 -0500
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-26 11:39 -0700
Re: Constant strings Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-26 16:27 -0500
Re: Constant strings Ian Zimmerman <itz@buug.org> - 2014-04-27 10:46 -0700
Re: Constant strings James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-26 22:46 -0400
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-27 10:08 +0100
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-27 07:35 -0700
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-27 16:35 +0100
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-27 12:28 -0700
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-27 12:36 +0100
Re: Constant strings James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-27 23:14 -0400
Re: Constant strings Seungbeom Kim <musiphil@bawi.org> - 2014-04-26 18:03 -0700
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-27 02:33 +0100
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-24 07:49 -0700
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-25 03:03 +0100
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-25 22:50 +0100
Re: Constant strings Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2014-04-24 20:20 -0600
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-24 23:31 -0700
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-25 15:24 +0100
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-25 08:31 -0700
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-24 07:58 -0700
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-26 13:38 +0100
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-26 11:50 -0700
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-24 07:42 -0700
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-24 08:43 -0700
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-23 11:28 -0700
Re: Constant strings Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-23 18:42 +0000
Re: Constant strings Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-24 14:03 -0500
Re: Constant strings glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-23 20:49 +0000
Re: Constant strings Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-23 21:21 +0000
Re: Constant strings Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-23 10:50 -0500
Re: Constant strings Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-22 19:41 -0500
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-22 09:43 -0700
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-22 18:19 +0100
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-22 11:45 -0700
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-22 20:01 +0100
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-22 12:19 -0700
Re: Constant strings Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-23 11:01 -0500
Re: Constant strings Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-22 15:21 -0500
Re: Constant strings Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2014-04-20 11:08 +0100
Re: Constant strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-22 02:26 -0700
Re: Constant strings Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-22 21:36 +1200
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-22 13:14 +0100
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-22 07:25 -0700
Re: Constant strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-22 08:29 -0700
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-22 09:35 -0700
Re: Constant strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-22 09:54 -0700
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-22 10:17 -0700
Re: Constant strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-22 10:31 -0700
Re: Constant strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-22 02:33 -0700
Re: Constant strings Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-22 21:37 +1200
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-22 07:17 -0700
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-19 13:42 +0100
Re: Constant strings Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2014-04-19 15:42 +0000
Re: Constant strings Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-19 16:19 +0000
Re: Constant strings Seungbeom Kim <musiphil@bawi.org> - 2014-04-19 17:47 -0700
Re: Constant strings Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-04-22 11:00 -0500
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-22 18:36 +0100
Re: Constant strings Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-23 09:38 +1200
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-22 23:25 +0100
Re: Constant strings Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-23 10:48 +1200
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-23 12:37 +0100
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-23 13:47 +0100
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-23 14:03 +0100
Re: Constant strings Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-24 09:14 +1200
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-23 23:37 +0100
Re: Constant strings Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-24 10:54 +1200
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-24 00:52 +0100
Re: Constant strings Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-24 01:04 +0000
Re: Constant strings Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-24 13:16 +1200
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-23 19:14 -0700
Re: Constant strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-24 03:41 +0100
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-23 16:04 -0700
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-18 08:53 -0700
Re: Constant strings Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-20 16:02 -0700
Re: Constant strings Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-18 16:13 +0000
Re: Constant strings "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-18 18:34 +0100
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-18 11:06 -0700
Re: Constant strings Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-18 18:54 +0000
Re: Constant strings Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-18 14:15 -0700
Re: Constant strings Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-04-20 20:15 +0200
Re: Constant strings Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-04-20 22:13 +0200
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-20 14:31 -0700
Re: Constant strings Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-20 14:30 -0700
Re: Constant strings Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-04-21 02:43 +0200
Re: Constant strings Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-21 03:12 +0000
Re: Constant strings Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-04-21 09:08 +0200
Page 6 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 14 Next page →
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-25 11:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnk3ads1nk.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #43568 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
> On 25-Apr-14 07:31, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 04/25/2014 12:57 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> On 24-Apr-14 14:32, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> Really? I wouldn't expect that. If I had a read-only array, I'd
>>>> expect its elements to be read-only.
>>>
>>> That'd be an array of const int, not a const array of int.
>>
>> So, what does "const array of int" mean to you? If it were possible to
>> declare a const array of int, how would you describe the way in which it
>> differs from an ordinary array of int?
>>
>>> I think someone mentioned upthread that one can actually create a const
>>> array (rather than an array of const) using a typedef. I'm not sure how
>>> it could behave any differently from a non-const array, though.
>>
>> That is the question I'd like answered. I don't understand what people
>> think they mean by that term that makes it different from "array of
>> const int".
>
> As previously explained, arrays already seem to be effectively const, so
> adding an explicit "const" is a no-op.
In what sense are arrays "effectively const"?
An array object is not read-only unless you've included the "const"
keyword in its definition.
If you're talking about the pointer value to which an array
expression is (usually) implicitly converted, that's a pointer,
not an array -- and since it's not an lvalue, "const" doesn't even
apply to it. As I said previously, there's nothing to modify.
"42++" isn't illegal because 42 is const, it's illegal because
42 isn't an lvalue. The same thing applies to the pointer value
resulting from an array-to-pointer conversion.
> However, "const array of int"
> and "array of const int" read quite differently to me, and IMHO we
> shouldn't have two seemingly-different ways of saying the exact same
> thing. The latter better expresses both the intent and the behavior, so
> it should be the preferred form.
"const array of int" and "array of const int" are not C syntax.
I guess you could draw a distinction between "const int arr[10];"
and "int const arr[10];", but C currently doesn't make such a
distinction. Similarly, "const int n;" and "int const n;" also mean
exactly the same thing. ("int arr const[10];" is a syntax error.)
If you think there are too many ways to express "array of const int"
because the placement of the "const" keyword is too flexible, I won't
disagree, but that's not fixable without breaking existing code.
If you think that "const array of int" is a distinct concept that should
be expressible in C, I ask you to specify what it means and how it
differs from "array of const int".
--
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 | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-25 15:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <535AB32D.6070506@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #43578 |
On 04/25/2014 02:29 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > If you think that "const array of int" is a distinct concept that should > be expressible in C, I ask you to specify what it means and how it > differs from "array of const int". I've already asked that question twice, and every response has ended up waffling on the "how does it differ" question: On 04/24/2014 01:23 PM, BartC wrote: > I suppose a difference could be invented, ... On 04/25/2014 10:51 AM, Martin Shobe wrote: > As far as I can tell, the difference is conceptual. ... I'm > unaware of any practical differences. My education in advanced physics included learning many apparently different ways to conceptualized the same physical reality - but if those different conceptions never produce different predictions, those differences were not real - the "different" conceptions all fundamentally mean the same thing, even if that fact isn't obvious. On 04/25/2014 11:58 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > ... arrays already seem to be effectively const, so > adding an explicit "const" is a no-op.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-25 19:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ljetau$29b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #43581 |
On 4/25/2014 2:10 PM, James Kuyper wrote: > On 04/25/2014 02:29 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > >> If you think that "const array of int" is a distinct concept that should >> be expressible in C, I ask you to specify what it means and how it >> differs from "array of const int". > > I've already asked that question twice, and every response has ended up > waffling on the "how does it differ" question: I was trying to explain what I thought the difference between the two phrases was. To help do that I also told you something I thought it wasn't. If that's "waffling" to you, so be it. > On 04/25/2014 10:51 AM, Martin Shobe wrote: >> As far as I can tell, the difference is conceptual. ... I'm >> unaware of any practical differences. > > My education in advanced physics included learning many apparently > different ways to conceptualized the same physical reality - but if > those different conceptions never produce different predictions, those > differences were not real - the "different" conceptions all > fundamentally mean the same thing, even if that fact isn't obvious. Not all differences are extensional. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 05:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ljfurv$7tp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #43586 |
On 04/25/2014 08:06 PM, Martin Shobe wrote: > On 4/25/2014 2:10 PM, James Kuyper wrote: >> On 04/25/2014 02:29 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> >>> If you think that "const array of int" is a distinct concept that should >>> be expressible in C, I ask you to specify what it means and how it >>> differs from "array of const int". >> >> I've already asked that question twice, and every response has ended up >> waffling on the "how does it differ" question: > > I was trying to explain what I thought the difference between the two > phrases was. You gave descriptions that contained different words in different orders, but I couldn't figure out how they had actual meaningfully different meanings. That could have been a failure on my part to understand what you were saying, but for now I still don't understand the distinction you were making. > ... To help do that I also told you something I thought it > wasn't. If that's "waffling" to you, so be it. Is there something you can do with a const array of int that you can't do with a array of const int? How about the other way around? It's easy to come up with answers to those questions if 'array' were replaced with 'pointer', but I have no idea what you think the answers would be for an array. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 04:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1bfbb17b-a72d-4677-be5f-03ff1a31df48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #43591 |
On Saturday, April 26, 2014 10:39:10 AM UTC+1, James Kuyper wrote:
>
> Is there something you can do with a const array of int that you can't
> do with a array of const int? How about the other way around? It's easy
> to come up with answers to those questions if 'array' were replaced with
> 'pointer', but I have no idea what you think the answers would be for an
> array.
>
Consider this
const int constarray[10] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10};
int const arrayofconst[10] = { 1 ,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10};
int foo( const int const x[5] )
{
return x[0]+x[1]+x[2]+x[3]+x[4];
}
foo(arrayofcont + 5); /* should be legal */
foo(constarray + 5); /*should be illegal */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 12:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.cfda95f524c227691d46.20140426125013BST.87r44k5myy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #43592 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Saturday, April 26, 2014 10:39:10 AM UTC+1, James Kuyper wrote:
>>
>> Is there something you can do with a const array of int that you can't
>> do with a array of const int? How about the other way around? It's easy
>> to come up with answers to those questions if 'array' were replaced with
>> 'pointer', but I have no idea what you think the answers would be for an
>> array.
>>
> Consider this
>
> const int constarray[10] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10};
> int const arrayofconst[10] = { 1 ,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10};
This might confuse some people -- it's not 100% clear that you are
suggesting a new meaning for this syntax. In C as-it-is, the order of
the type specifiers and qualifiers is irrelevant, so these two
definitions are identical -- the const qualifies the array element
type.
The "thing" that is affected by const changes only when it moves into
what is called the declarator: the syntax that defines pointer, array
and function derived types, so if I wanted to suggest a new syntax to
make the distinction you want I'd use:
int constarray const [10]; // illegal syntax in C as-it-is
> int foo( const int const x[5] )
> {
> return x[0]+x[1]+x[2]+x[3]+x[4];
> }
>
> foo(arrayofcont + 5); /* should be legal */
> foo(constarray + 5); /*should be illegal */
Why should this be illegal? I don't see anything being modified in a
way that might reasonably be affected by const. If your point is about
type compatibility, why the '+ 5'?
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 05:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59228a61-206f-4037-a874-0925d76518f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #43594 |
On Saturday, April 26, 2014 12:50:13 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > > foo(arrayofcont + 5); /* should be legal */ > > foo(constarray + 5); /*should be illegal */ > > Why should this be illegal? I don't see anything being modified in a > way that might reasonably be affected by const. If your point is about > type compatibility, why the '+ 5'? > With the first array, the elements are constant. We don't want anyone messing about with the concept that in our system 1 is the first number and replacing it with a 0 (or 42). With the second system, the array is constant. We want ten and only ten numbers from 1 to 10, we don't want anyone pre-pending a zero or chopping off the ten. Of course C, like most languages, can't express the concept "this is a datum, not data, it must be used whole or not at all". But we can at least make a nod to it by outlawing passing a portion of the array to a subroutine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 11:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln7g6crltv.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #43595 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Saturday, April 26, 2014 12:50:13 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>>
>> > foo(arrayofcont + 5); /* should be legal */
>> > foo(constarray + 5); /*should be illegal */
>>
>> Why should this be illegal? I don't see anything being modified in a
>> way that might reasonably be affected by const. If your point is about
>> type compatibility, why the '+ 5'?
>>
> With the first array, the elements are constant. We don't want anyone
> messing about with the concept that in our system 1 is the first number
> and replacing it with a 0 (or 42). With the second system, the array
> is constant. We want ten and only ten numbers from 1 to 10, we don't
> want anyone pre-pending a zero or chopping off the ten. Of course C,
> like most languages, can't express the concept "this is a datum, not
> data, it must be used whole or not at all". But we can at least make a
> nod to it by outlawing passing a portion of the array to a subroutine.
In C as it is, you can't pass an array to a subroutine at all.
I don't think "const" or "constarray" is a reasonable way to express the
idea that you can't extract a subrange of an array. I'm not sure that's
a reason restriction to impose at all; surely you can do that with a
loop anyway.
In Ada, arrays are first-class types, and there's a syntax for taking a
slice of an array. There's no prohibition on taking a slice of a
constant array ("constant" here means the same thing as C's "const"):
X: constant String(1..5) := "abcde";
Y: array(2..4) of Integer := X(2..4);
--
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 | 2014-04-26 19:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ljh0fu$ps7$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #43602 |
In article <ln7g6crltv.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: ... >In C as it is, you can't pass an array to a subroutine at all. (Pedantic, CLC-ish answer, which should make Kiki proud) Because C doesn't have "subroutines". -- "I heard somebody say, 'Where's Nelson Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead. Because Saddam killed all the Mandelas." George W. Bush, on the former South African president who is still very much alive, Sept. 20, 2007
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 23:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87tx9fn4cs.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #43608 |
gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes: > In article <ln7g6crltv.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > ... >>In C as it is, you can't pass an array to a subroutine at all. > > (Pedantic, CLC-ish answer, which should make Kiki proud) > > Because C doesn't have "subroutines". Can you elaborate please? I need a good cringe. -- "Avoid hyperbole at all costs, its the most destructive argument on the planet" - Mark McIntyre in comp.lang.c
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 18:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <eIW6v.60321$IN1.44973@en-nntp-15.dc1.easynews.com> |
| In reply to | #43616 |
On 4/26/14, 5:54 PM, Richard wrote: > gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes: > >> In article <ln7g6crltv.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson >> <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: ... >>> In C as it is, you can't pass an array to a subroutine at all. >> >> (Pedantic, CLC-ish answer, which should make Kiki proud) >> >> Because C doesn't have "subroutines". > > Can you elaborate please? I need a good cringe. > My guess he is referring to the fact that in C we have just "functions", but nothing called a "subroutine". Some languages make a distinction, but in C we have "function returning void", where some other language may call it a subroutine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 23:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ljhdt3$gb9$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #43619 |
Richard Damon <Richard@damon-family.org> wrote: (snip) > My guess he is referring to the fact that in C we have just "functions", > but nothing called a "subroutine". Some languages make a distinction, > but in C we have "function returning void", where some other language > may call it a subroutine. In languages without reserved words, there usually needs to be a way to call a "subroutine" other than to put its name at the beginning of the line. One has to have some way to keep it from being ambiguous. Fortran and PL/I have the CALL statement for subroutines (or procedures that don't return a value). -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Seungbeom Kim <musiphil@bawi.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 18:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ljhlbq$vog$1@usenet.stanford.edu> |
| In reply to | #43619 |
On 2014-04-26 15:47, Richard Damon wrote: > On 4/26/14, 5:54 PM, Richard wrote: >> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes: >>> >>> Because C doesn't have "subroutines". >> >> Can you elaborate please? I need a good cringe. > > My guess he is referring to the fact that in C we have just "functions", > but nothing called a "subroutine". Some languages make a distinction, > but in C we have "function returning void", where some other language > may call it a subroutine. I've seen languages that differentiate procedures and functions, but I've always thought that subroutines are a general term referring to reusable program units, including procedures and functions and even any portion of a BASIC program, without a clear block structure, that can be called by GOSUB <line number>. -- Seungbeom Kim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-27 01:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ljhm52$61g$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #43628 |
In article <ljhlbq$vog$1@usenet.stanford.edu>, Seungbeom Kim <musiphil@bawi.org> wrote: >On 2014-04-26 15:47, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 4/26/14, 5:54 PM, Richard wrote: >>> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes: >>>> >>>> Because C doesn't have "subroutines". >>> >>> Can you elaborate please? I need a good cringe. >> >> My guess he is referring to the fact that in C we have just "functions", >> but nothing called a "subroutine". Some languages make a distinction, >> but in C we have "function returning void", where some other language >> may call it a subroutine. > >I've seen languages that differentiate procedures and functions, >but I've always thought that subroutines are a general term referring >to reusable program units, including procedures and functions and >even any portion of a BASIC program, without a clear block structure, >that can be called by GOSUB <line number>. I would venture that the word "subroutine" does not occur in the C standards documents (Note: I may be wrong about this - it might be in there somewhere for some reason or another - but the point still stands. There is nothing in the C universe, as it is defined in this newsgroup, that is a "subroutine"). In any case, I'm sure Kiki is grepping it already as we speak... As an illustration, think about what a feeding frenzy all the regs go into everytime some hapless soul mentions "references" or "call by reference" here. The sharks circle for the chance to be the first to crow that these things don't exist in C. But anyone with any self-awareness knows perfectly well what we mean when we talk about them in the context of C, just as here anyone with any self-awareness knows what we mean when we talk about a subroutine in C. But this shouldn't stop the regs from having their little feeding frenzy. -- Both the leader of the Mormon Church and the leader of the Catholic church claim infallibility. Is it any surprise that these two orgs revile each other? Anybody with any sense knows that 80-yr old codgers are hardly infallible. Some codgers this age do well to find the crapper in time and remember to zip-up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-27 04:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87a9b77cb4.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #43630 |
gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes: > In article <ljhlbq$vog$1@usenet.stanford.edu>, > Seungbeom Kim <musiphil@bawi.org> wrote: >>On 2014-04-26 15:47, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 4/26/14, 5:54 PM, Richard wrote: >>>> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes: >>>>> >>>>> Because C doesn't have "subroutines". >>>> >>>> Can you elaborate please? I need a good cringe. >>> >>> My guess he is referring to the fact that in C we have just "functions", >>> but nothing called a "subroutine". Some languages make a distinction, >>> but in C we have "function returning void", where some other language >>> may call it a subroutine. >> >>I've seen languages that differentiate procedures and functions, >>but I've always thought that subroutines are a general term referring >>to reusable program units, including procedures and functions and >>even any portion of a BASIC program, without a clear block structure, >>that can be called by GOSUB <line number>. > > I would venture that the word "subroutine" does not occur in the C > standards documents (Note: I may be wrong about this - it might be in there > somewhere for some reason or another - but the point still stands. There > is nothing in the C universe, as it is defined in this newsgroup, that is a > "subroutine"). In any case, I'm sure Kiki is grepping it already as we > speak... > > As an illustration, think about what a feeding frenzy all the regs go into > everytime some hapless soul mentions "references" or "call by reference" > here. The sharks circle for the chance to be the first to crow that these > things don't exist in C. But anyone with any self-awareness knows > perfectly well what we mean when we talk about them in the context of C, > just as here anyone with any self-awareness knows what we mean when we talk > about a subroutine in C. > > But this shouldn't stop the regs from having their little feeding > frenzy. Ah. As I thought. Nice one. -- "Avoid hyperbole at all costs, its the most destructive argument on the planet" - Mark McIntyre in comp.lang.c
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-25 16:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ugl4o99emmdr31mb5besjsk5t18l8jp4db@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #43628 |
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 18:09:03 -0700, Seungbeom Kim <musiphil@bawi.org> wrote: > On 2014-04-26 15:47, Richard Damon wrote: > > On 4/26/14, 5:54 PM, Richard wrote: > >> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes: > >>> > >>> Because C doesn't have "subroutines". > >> > >> Can you elaborate please? I need a good cringe. > > > > My guess he is referring to the fact that in C we have just "functions", > > but nothing called a "subroutine". Some languages make a distinction, > > but in C we have "function returning void", where some other language > > may call it a subroutine. > > I've seen languages that differentiate procedures and functions, > but I've always thought that subroutines are a general term referring > to reusable program units, including procedures and functions and > even any portion of a BASIC program, without a clear block structure, > that can be called by GOSUB <line number>. Terminology varies. FORTRAN got there first and had SUBROUTINE (no value) and FUNCTION (value), which together are called program-unit (although I'm not sure they were from the beginning). Pascal changed this to PROCEDURE and FUNCTION, and Ada followed that example. algol 60 had PROC with or without return (value) type; algol 68 the same keyword but described them as 'routine', and used explicit 'void' for no value. PL/I had PROCEDURE or abbreviated PROC with or without RETURNS(type). C did not use any keyword, but called them 'function' and allowed value type (defaulting to int until C99) or void. COBOL originally had only program-unit with no value, but I believe functions (and OO!) have been added since I parted ways. Classic BASIC had only GOSUB as you say, but the many variant and 'enhanced' XX-BASIC's have been over much of the map. LISP strictly speaking had lambda forms and some other special forms, but they were commonly referred to as functions, and always returned a value unless aborted, but a special value (identified as) NIL was variously used for null, empty, unknown, inapplicable, and false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-25 14:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnmwe51qmn.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #44976 |
David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> writes:
[...]
> algol 60 had PROC with or without return (value) type; algol 68 the
> same keyword but described them as 'routine', and used explicit 'void'
> for no value. PL/I had PROCEDURE or abbreviated PROC with or without
> RETURNS(type). C did not use any keyword, but called them 'function'
> and allowed value type (defaulting to int until C99) or void.
[...]
And prior to the 1989 ANSI C standard, which introduced the void
keyword, all C functions returned a value, at least implicitly.
The equivalent of a valueless function was usually written by
omitting any return statement (or writing "return;") and by having
the caller ignore any returned value.
--
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 | Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-27 04:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87eh0j7ccg.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #43619 |
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: > On 4/26/14, 5:54 PM, Richard wrote: >> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes: >> >>> In article <ln7g6crltv.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson >>> <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: ... >>>> In C as it is, you can't pass an array to a subroutine at all. >>> >>> (Pedantic, CLC-ish answer, which should make Kiki proud) >>> >>> Because C doesn't have "subroutines". >> >> Can you elaborate please? I need a good cringe. >> > > My guess he is referring to the fact that in C we have just "functions", > but nothing called a "subroutine". Some languages make a distinction, > but in C we have "function returning void", where some other language > may call it a subroutine. But only a complete dickhead would differentiate when talking amongst peer programmers, right? I ask because as a programmer for 30 years it would be plainly obvious what was meant and would not alter *anything* even if used alternatively when discussing a C code base. -- "Avoid hyperbole at all costs, its the most destructive argument on the planet" - Mark McIntyre in comp.lang.c
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-27 05:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lji50m$rds$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #43633 |
Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> wrote: > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: (snip) >> My guess he is referring to the fact that in C we have just "functions", >> but nothing called a "subroutine". Some languages make a distinction, >> but in C we have "function returning void", where some other language >> may call it a subroutine. > But only a complete dickhead would differentiate when talking amongst > peer programmers, right? I think it depends on context. In a discussion including a language where they are different, it is confusing to use a term with a different meaning than it has in that language. I sometimes use the term 'procedure' as a generic term, though that could be confusing in some contexts. > I ask because as a programmer for 30 years it would be plainly obvious > what was meant and would not alter *anything* even if used alternatively > when discussing a C code base. In the case of C, I suppose so. In mixed language context, it can get confusing. -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-27 06:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57b7a27b-2d0b-4094-99ca-050cf0288008@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #43619 |
On Saturday, April 26, 2014 11:47:38 PM UTC+1, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> My guess he is referring to the fact that in C we have just "functions",
> but nothing called a "subroutine". Some languages make a distinction,
> but in C we have "function returning void", where some other language
> may call it a subroutine.
>
void was tacked on the the language later.
In original C, if you wanted a function that was inherently not returning a
value, like busy_idle(), you''d write
busy_idle(int N)
{
while(N--);
}
it would then return whatever happened to be in its return value register.
So
while(buy_idle(1));
was legal, but would give you odd results.
With void, the function would be declared void and this became illegal.
Which was a good thing. But it did add another rule for compiler writers to
be aware of.
The practical programming difference between a function which returns a
value in its return type and one that returns one through a passed pointers
is almost nothing, however. It's not a distinction that people who care
about good software design should be interested in, just people who
write formal grammars for compilers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web