Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #150040 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-02-16 02:25 -0800 |
| Last post | 2020-04-09 07:38 -0700 |
| Articles | 8 on this page of 148 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: C String terminator Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-02-16 02:25 -0800
Re: C String terminator Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-02-16 14:24 -0800
Re: C String terminator Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-02-22 08:13 -0800
Re: C String terminator Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-02-22 09:05 -0800
Re: C String terminator Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-03-27 19:58 -0700
Re: C String terminator Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-03-27 23:26 -0700
Re: C String terminator Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-04-02 09:21 -0700
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-02 09:54 -0700
Re: C String terminator Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-04-02 11:17 -0700
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-02 13:12 -0700
Re: C String terminator Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-04-02 13:28 -0700
Re: C String terminator Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-04-02 19:17 -0700
Re: C String terminator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-04-03 09:47 +0200
Re: C String terminator already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2020-04-03 08:03 -0700
Re: C String terminator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-04-03 17:34 +0200
Re: C String terminator James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-04-03 12:39 -0400
Re: C String terminator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-04-03 18:05 +0100
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-03 10:18 -0700
Re: C String terminator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-04-03 22:13 +0100
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-03 14:36 -0700
Re: C String terminator Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-04-03 16:18 -0700
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-04 01:43 -0700
Re: C String terminator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-04-04 18:23 +0200
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-04 11:18 -0700
Re: C String terminator Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-04-04 13:02 -0700
Re: C String terminator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-04-05 21:54 +0200
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-05 13:59 -0700
Re: C String terminator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-04-06 09:07 +0200
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-06 02:25 -0700
Re: C String terminator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-04-06 11:43 +0100
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-06 03:56 -0700
Re: C String terminator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-04-06 16:34 +0100
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-06 10:30 -0700
Re: C String terminator richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2020-04-06 17:50 +0000
Re: C String terminator Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-04-06 11:31 -0700
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-06 12:04 -0700
Re: C String terminator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-04-06 21:51 +0100
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-06 14:34 -0700
Re: C String terminator Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-04-06 14:39 -0700
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-06 14:52 -0700
Re: C String terminator Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-04-06 15:31 -0700
Re: C String terminator jameskuyper@stellarscience.com - 2020-04-06 16:05 -0700
Re: C String terminator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-04-07 03:08 +0100
Re: C String terminator Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2020-04-06 21:12 -0600
Re: C String terminator scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-04-07 16:55 +0000
Re: C String terminator Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2020-04-07 11:05 -0600
Re: C String terminator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-04-07 20:39 +0200
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-07 11:48 -0700
Re: C String terminator Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2020-04-07 21:21 -0600
Re: C String terminator James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-04-07 20:40 -0700
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-08 01:41 -0700
Re: C String terminator James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-04-08 07:40 -0700
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-08 08:16 -0700
Re: C String terminator James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-04-08 09:17 -0700
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-08 09:46 -0700
Re: C String terminator James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-04-08 10:37 -0700
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-08 10:48 -0700
Re: C String terminator Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-04-08 14:07 -0400
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-08 11:29 -0700
Re: C String terminator James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-04-08 16:46 -0700
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-09 01:57 -0700
Re: C String terminator James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-04-09 08:42 -0700
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-09 08:56 -0700
Re: C String terminator Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-04-09 12:42 -0400
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-09 10:12 -0700
Re: C String terminator Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-04-09 15:51 -0400
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-09 13:02 -0700
Re: C String terminator James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-04-09 13:06 -0700
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-09 14:49 -0700
Re: C String terminator Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-04-09 19:05 -0400
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-10 02:25 -0700
Re: C String terminator Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-04-10 04:38 -0700
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-10 05:21 -0700
Re: C String terminator Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-04-10 07:13 -0700
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-10 11:38 -0700
Re: C String terminator Ike Naar <ike@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2020-04-11 17:38 +0000
Re: C String terminator Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-04-11 15:04 -0700
Re: C String terminator Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-04-11 15:16 -0400
Re: C String terminator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-04-11 21:45 +0100
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-12 04:39 -0700
Re: C String terminator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-04-12 21:34 +0100
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-12 14:38 -0700
Re: C String terminator Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-04-13 11:13 -0400
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-13 08:24 -0700
Re: C String terminator Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-04-11 15:08 -0700
Re: C String terminator James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-04-09 09:53 -0700
Re: C String terminator James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-04-07 14:35 -0400
Re: C String terminator Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-04-06 21:04 -0700
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-07 01:16 -0700
Re: C String terminator Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-04-07 02:08 -0700
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-07 02:19 -0700
Re: C String terminator Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-04-07 08:42 -0700
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-07 10:39 -0700
Re: C String terminator scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-04-07 17:45 +0000
Re: C String terminator James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-04-07 14:40 -0400
Re: C String terminator Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-04-07 11:03 -0700
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-07 11:14 -0700
Re: C String terminator Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-04-07 12:19 -0700
Re: C String terminator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-04-07 12:02 +0100
Re: C String terminator Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-04-07 06:27 -0700
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-07 07:44 -0700
Re: C String terminator Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-04-07 08:30 -0700
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-07 00:27 -0700
Re: C String terminator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-04-07 12:50 +0100
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-07 05:25 -0700
Re: C String terminator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-04-07 23:52 +0100
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-08 03:15 -0700
Re: C String terminator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-04-08 21:28 +0100
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-08 15:40 -0700
Re: C String terminator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-04-09 00:31 +0100
Re: C String terminator Ike Naar <ike@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2020-04-07 21:40 +0000
Re: C String terminator luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2020-04-06 09:41 -0700
Re: C String terminator Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-04-06 12:46 -0700
Re: C String terminator Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2020-04-07 17:17 +0200
Re: C String terminator Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-04-09 07:23 -0700
Re: C String terminator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-04-04 22:32 +0100
Re: C String terminator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-04-03 21:59 +0200
Re: C String terminator James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-04-03 23:48 -0400
Jared Kushner would be proud... (Was: C String terminator) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2020-04-04 09:00 +0000
Re: Jared Kushner would be proud... (Was: C String terminator) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-04 02:45 -0700
Re: Jared Kushner would be proud... (Was: C String terminator) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-04-04 10:24 +0000
Re: Jared Kushner would be proud... (Was: C String terminator) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-04 03:55 -0700
Re: Jared Kushner would be proud... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-04-04 13:27 -0700
Re: Jared Kushner would be proud... Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-04 13:52 -0700
Re: Jared Kushner would be proud... Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-04 14:12 -0700
Re: Jared Kushner would be proud... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-04-04 15:12 -0700
Re: Jared Kushner would be proud... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-04-04 15:03 -0700
Re: Jared Kushner would be proud... Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-04-04 18:46 -0400
Re: Jared Kushner would be proud... Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-05 01:53 -0700
Re: Jared Kushner would be proud... Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-04-05 02:33 -0700
Re: Jared Kushner would be proud... Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-05 06:43 -0700
Re: Jared Kushner would be proud... (Was: C String terminator) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-04-04 19:48 -0700
Re: Jared Kushner would be proud... (Was: C String terminator) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-04-04 06:37 -0700
Re: C String terminator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-04-04 18:36 +0200
Re: C String terminator dave_thompson_2@comcast.net - 2020-05-02 15:13 -0400
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-03 09:41 -0700
Re: C String terminator Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-04-03 10:33 -0700
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-03 11:14 -0700
Re: C String terminator Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-04-03 11:34 -0700
Re: C String terminator James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-04-03 14:48 -0400
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-03 12:10 -0700
Re: C String terminator Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-04-03 13:24 -0700
Re: C String terminator James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-04-03 23:59 -0400
Re: C String terminator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-04-03 22:05 +0100
Re: C String terminator Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-04-04 20:34 -0700
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-05 02:05 -0700
Re: C String terminator Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-04-09 07:35 -0700
Re: C String terminator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-04-09 07:38 -0700
Page 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-03 12:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c93dad1b-06f2-403a-b1d9-443407ff5661@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #150990 |
On Friday, 3 April 2020 19:48:56 UTC+1, James Kuyper wrote: > > It's a serious mistake to interpret what the standard says about > characters using any definition of "character" other than one the two+ > (3.7p1, 3.7.1p1) provided in the standard (any context where it makes a > difference which of the two applies, and is not clear from context, > constitutes a defect in the standard - such a situation would not > justify using your own preferred definition for the term). Similarly, > the standard defines many terms that include the word "character" (such > as "multibyte character" or "source character set" or "decimal-point > character"), and it's a serious mistake to use any definitions for any > of those terms other than the ones provided by the standard, when > interpreting what the standard means. That's the reason the standard > provides such definitions. The two definitions are: character〈abstract〉member of a set of elements used for the organization, control, or representation of data 3.7.11 character single-byte character〈C〉bit representation that fits in a byte So the second definition is a synonm for "char or derived types". The first is an attempt to provide the normal English definition in a computer context, and they haven't made a very good job of it. For Keith's benefit, by "char or derived types" I mean char, unsigned char, signed char, plus any aliases such as uint8_t. I don't mean wchar_t, which is a "type derived from char", because you've taken the concept of "char" and extended it, but in another context. You have to read sympathetically, assuming that if there is a natural, correct meaning which makes sense, this is also the meaning intended. That's part of communication.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-03 13:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87ftdkqpvc.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #150993 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> On Friday, 3 April 2020 19:48:56 UTC+1, James Kuyper wrote:
>>
>> It's a serious mistake to interpret what the standard says about
>> characters using any definition of "character" other than one the two+
>> (3.7p1, 3.7.1p1) provided in the standard (any context where it makes a
>> difference which of the two applies, and is not clear from context,
>> constitutes a defect in the standard - such a situation would not
>> justify using your own preferred definition for the term). Similarly,
>> the standard defines many terms that include the word "character" (such
>> as "multibyte character" or "source character set" or "decimal-point
>> character"), and it's a serious mistake to use any definitions for any
>> of those terms other than the ones provided by the standard, when
>> interpreting what the standard means. That's the reason the standard
>> provides such definitions.
>
> The two definitions are:
> character〈abstract〉member of a set of elements used for the
> organization, control, or representation of data
>
> 3.7.11 character
> single-byte character〈C〉bit representation that fits in a byte
>
> So the second definition is a synonm for "char or derived types".
> The first is an attempt to provide the normal English definition in
> a computer context, and they haven't made a very good job of it.
>
> For Keith's benefit, by "char or derived types" I mean char,
> unsigned char, signed char, plus any aliases such as uint8_t. I
> don't mean wchar_t, which is a "type derived from char", because you've
> taken the concept of "char" and extended it, but in another context.
Please stop using the term "derived types" in a manner that
contradicts the clear definition in the standard -- especially when
you're discussing definitions in the standard.
> You have to read sympathetically, assuming that if there is a natural,
> correct meaning which makes sense, this is also the meaning intended.
> That's part of communication.
Try to be better at it. Again, you *know* that by deliberately
using technical terms with meanings other than those defined in
the standard, you'll trigger these time-wasting arguments.
Yes, I knew what you meant by "derived types" -- but why impose
that extra effort on your readers rather than taking just a moment
of your own time to write clearly and correctly?
The standard already has the defined term "character types", which
as far as I can tell matches what you're talking about.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-03 23:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <r690nk$e88$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #150996 |
On 4/3/20 4:24 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
...
>> For Keith's benefit, by "char or derived types" I mean char,
>> unsigned char, signed char, plus any aliases such as uint8_t. I
For Malcolm's benefit, according to the standard the phrase "char or
derived types" does NOT include "unsigned char" or "signed char", but it
does include "char[10]", "struct mystruct { char c;}", "union charint{
char c; int i}", "char ()(void)", "char*" and "_Atomic(char)"
(6.2.5p20). That's a prime example of why it's a bad idea to use a term
with a well-defined topic-specific meaning, when that meaning doesn't
match the way you're using it.
>> You have to read sympathetically, assuming that if there is a natural,
>> correct meaning which makes sense, this is also the meaning intended.
>> That's part of communication.
That's only part of it. Another part of communication, when discussing a
given topic, is to learn the correct meaning of any jargon that is
specific to that topic, and to do your best to use that jargon
correctly. A third part of good communication is to remind people who
are misusing the jargon of the correct way to use it, and to encourage
them to to use it correctly. All of these processes play different but
essential roles in ensuring accurate communication.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-03 22:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87a73s9t57.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #150983 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > Characters are passed about as ints in standard C, partly so that EOF can > be encoded as -1, enabling all 8 bits of a char to be used for data > encoding. Characters are also passed around as char objects using all the available bits. > "char" is still the ASCII character type, No, char implies no encoding. Even talking your "is" as "is assumed to be" the "still" is wrong. Whilst there was a time when ASCII was almost ubiquitous, it was not so in the early days (the second C implementation used EBCDIC). And it's not so in modern times either where many programs now use the char type to carry the bytes of UTF-8 encoded characters. The fact that char is not "still the ASCII character type" is dramatically shown by many C programs that just open a file. I have several such programs that were written when my system's files has ASCII names. The same programs now works for Unicode names, without even being recompiled. > and the term "character" can be > used in several senses, one of which is the full word for "char". Hence > "array of character type", meaning "array of chars or derived types". I can't understand your "hence". If the word "character" in "character type" were indeed the full word for "char", "char type" and "character type" would be synonymous (at least in this context), and that is obviously not the case. But you don't even go there with your "hence". Instead, your re-wording actually suggests that you think "character type" might mean "char or derived types", but that would be ignoring the meaning these words have in this context. The C standard says "array of character type" knowing that "character type" has been formally defined already. And it does not say "array of chars or derived types" because "derived types" have also been formally defined. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-04 20:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86y2ramwr7.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #150979 |
already5chosen@yahoo.com writes: > On Friday, April 3, 2020 at 10:48:08 AM UTC+3, [...] wrote: > >> On 03/04/2020 04:17, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> >>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On Thursday, 2 April 2020 17:22:11 UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>> >>>>> [There was an attribution missing here, which I have not >>>>> tried to restore] >>>>> >>>>>> Regarding a point I raised above, 3.7.1 defines a "character" >>>>>> as a "bit representation that fits in a byte", and 7.1.1 defines >>>>>> a "string" as a sequence of characters -- but "%s" specifically >>>>>> requires a pointer to the initial element of an array of character >>>>>> type, i.e., one of char, signed char, or unsigned char. I see >>>>>> no requirement that a "character" must be of "character type". >>>>>> Possibly the standard's definition of "character" is incomplete >>>>>> and/or does not fully convey the intent. >>>>> >>>>> The term "character" is a restriction on values, not types. The >>>>> constant 's' is a character, but has type int. >>>> >>>> That's so that EOF can be coded as -1, and is not a "character". >>>> >>>>> . >>>>> I haven't checked this, but I feel confident the Standard avoids >>>>> all of these problems by, eg, using parameter types such as 'char *' >>>>> so there is no question about what type is being referred to, or >>>>> by doing what is done for printf, namely, giving the specification >>>>> so it references "an array of character type". >>>> >>>> The "%s" format specifier can take char *, unsigned char *, or >>>> signed char *. That's quite a mouthful, so "array of character >>>> type" is used as shorthand. >>> >>> The depth of your understanding truly defies my >>> ability to describe it. >> >> [...] > > The point is *not* to correct any specific mistake of Malcolm McLean> > but to persuade him to stop taking part in discussions in-between > High Priesthood. > Which I consider not a bad advice. I guess I should say something, considering the deluge of downstream traffic my posting has precipitated. Malcolm has wacky ideas. Surely he must know by now that other people think his ideas are wacky -- my comment is nowhere near the first to suggest wackiness in one way or another. Furthermore it doesn't seem to bother or offend him that people express such reactions. It was not my intention to insult Malcolm. I expected he wouldn't react much one way or the other no matter what I said. What I wrote was written mainly out of a sense of frustration: frustration at not being able to have any really productive dialog with Malcolm, despite years of trying. As for some (not all) other folks who joined the conversation after the fact, I find their behavior extremely much more offensive than my comment to Malcolm, even if had been meant to be insulting. To already5chosen@yahoo.com - I appreciate your comment, as an effort to take the conversation in a positive direction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-05 02:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c5ff9883-b7a1-4984-b04d-8d7d5f0a35ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #151043 |
On Sunday, 5 April 2020 04:34:25 UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: > > Malcolm has wacky ideas. Surely he must know by now that other > people think his ideas are wacky -- my comment is nowhere near the > first to suggest wackiness in one way or another. Furthermore it > doesn't seem to bother or offend him that people express such > reactions. It was not my intention to insult Malcolm. I expected > he wouldn't react much one way or the other no matter what I said. > What I wrote was written mainly out of a sense of frustration: > frustration at not being able to have any really productive dialog > with Malcolm, despite years of trying. > > As for some (not all) other folks who joined the conversation after > the fact, I find their behavior extremely much more offensive than > my comment to Malcolm, even if had been meant to be insulting. > I interpreted it as you being annoyed because others were sniping at you. To be fair, my original post wasn't very well considered. I'm sorry you feel you can't have a productive discussion with me, but I really don't know what to do about that. You're not obliged to engage, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-09 07:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <864ktsn2w3.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #151051 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Sunday, 5 April 2020 04:34:25 UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Malcolm has wacky ideas. Surely he must know by now that other >> people think his ideas are wacky -- my comment is nowhere near the >> first to suggest wackiness in one way or another. Furthermore it >> doesn't seem to bother or offend him that people express such >> reactions. It was not my intention to insult Malcolm. I expected >> he wouldn't react much one way or the other no matter what I said. >> What I wrote was written mainly out of a sense of frustration: >> frustration at not being able to have any really productive dialog >> with Malcolm, despite years of trying. >> >> As for some (not all) other folks who joined the conversation after >> the fact, I find their behavior extremely much more offensive than >> my comment to Malcolm, even if had been meant to be insulting. > > I interpreted it as you being annoyed because others were sniping > at you. To be fair, my original post wasn't very well considered. > > I'm sorry you feel you can't have a productive discussion with me, > but I really don't know what to do about that. You're not obliged > to engage, of course. If you agree not to reply to my postings I agree not to reply to yours. Okay?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-09 07:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f8476bcf-d36f-46f2-9329-acfc3e994284@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #151260 |
On Thursday, 9 April 2020 15:35:17 UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Sunday, 5 April 2020 04:34:25 UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: > > > >> Malcolm has wacky ideas. Surely he must know by now that other > >> people think his ideas are wacky -- my comment is nowhere near the > >> first to suggest wackiness in one way or another. Furthermore it > >> doesn't seem to bother or offend him that people express such > >> reactions. It was not my intention to insult Malcolm. I expected > >> he wouldn't react much one way or the other no matter what I said. > >> What I wrote was written mainly out of a sense of frustration: > >> frustration at not being able to have any really productive dialog > >> with Malcolm, despite years of trying. > >> > >> As for some (not all) other folks who joined the conversation after > >> the fact, I find their behavior extremely much more offensive than > >> my comment to Malcolm, even if had been meant to be insulting. > > > > I interpreted it as you being annoyed because others were sniping > > at you. To be fair, my original post wasn't very well considered. > > > > I'm sorry you feel you can't have a productive discussion with me, > > but I really don't know what to do about that. You're not obliged > > to engage, of course. > > If you agree not to reply to my postings I agree not to > reply to yours. Okay? > I don't mind you replying to my postings. I'm sorry that you feel you can't interact constructively with me, but that's probably a function of my personality type, and I can't change that. I won't reply to you if you prefer.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web