Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #402647 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-03 08:43 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-10-28 02:27 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 638 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-03 08:43 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-03 11:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-05 22:15 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-03 14:22 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-03 18:02 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-04 00:24 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-03 17:36 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-03 16:31 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-04 10:23 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 12:18 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-04 16:20 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-05 21:34 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 16:04 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-04 16:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 16:09 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-04 16:59 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 18:30 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-04 19:49 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 20:35 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-04 22:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 22:47 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-04 21:59 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-04 23:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-05 01:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-05 21:48 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 00:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 09:49 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 11:12 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 12:41 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-06 12:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 15:16 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-06 14:37 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 17:27 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-06 23:14 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 01:25 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-07 04:19 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-07 06:28 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 11:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 12:57 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 11:32 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-07 15:10 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 19:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-08 04:49 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-08 12:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 09:07 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 11:49 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 13:11 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 16:17 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 15:32 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 17:25 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-06 14:39 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 19:48 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-06 18:12 +0000
[OT] substances (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 21:50 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 17:06 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 19:25 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 10:28 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-07 15:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 16:40 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-08 07:24 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 16:08 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-06 23:45 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 17:08 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 10:35 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 20:53 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 12:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 17:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 16:41 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-10-06 12:14 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 12:43 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2026-10-06 11:47 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 16:05 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 18:47 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-07 00:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 13:52 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-07 14:06 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 23:31 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 18:48 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-05 21:32 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-06 06:07 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-05 16:42 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-05 18:05 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 09:04 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 04:11 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 21:40 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-16 13:12 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-06 00:59 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-06 08:16 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 04:21 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-16 04:46 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-06 14:43 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 17:36 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-06 20:36 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-04 00:20 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-04 09:05 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-04 23:44 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-05 01:46 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-04 20:48 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-05 06:24 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-05 11:09 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-06 05:22 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-06 05:26 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-10 00:25 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 01:58 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-09 19:17 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 11:53 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 14:01 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 14:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-10 21:34 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-10 21:58 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-10 17:50 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 05:52 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-11 21:16 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 23:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 11:58 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-11 14:42 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 14:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 15:35 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 14:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 17:23 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 17:48 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 19:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-12 07:01 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 16:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 20:08 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 22:02 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-10 19:03 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 22:29 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 21:55 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 23:03 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 22:33 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 21:53 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 23:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-11 15:29 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-10 15:30 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-10 22:58 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-11 09:09 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-10-11 10:14 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-11 21:12 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 03:58 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 15:32 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-11 01:58 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 01:43 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-11 09:12 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 04:07 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 20:13 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 10:36 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-16 14:22 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 15:00 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-17 01:29 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 12:48 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 12:04 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 14:09 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 14:34 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 17:13 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 16:52 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 18:16 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 20:47 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 22:38 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 11:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 03:50 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 12:59 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:28 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 09:05 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-19 14:35 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 18:31 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Bob Duff <invalid@invalid.com> - 2026-10-19 19:38 -0400
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 17:03 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 02:45 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 05:01 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 00:45 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 18:34 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 17:49 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-18 22:18 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-18 23:51 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 01:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 19:37 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-01 10:13 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-01 10:17 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-01 10:34 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-18 23:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 16:15 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 18:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 13:39 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-19 08:47 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 18:28 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-29 22:11 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 16:11 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-20 01:02 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 09:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-18 22:33 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-20 02:53 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-20 12:22 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-17 19:39 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 18:23 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-17 17:36 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-17 21:03 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-17 10:30 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-17 10:54 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-19 23:41 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 14:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-11 04:26 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 13:35 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-11 06:13 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 14:51 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-11 15:33 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-11 09:01 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-11 19:17 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 18:57 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 14:28 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 23:02 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 16:29 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-12 04:03 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-12 22:02 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 21:09 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-12 22:31 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-12 22:32 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 22:05 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 23:14 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-13 07:23 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 12:12 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 11:26 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-13 12:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 06:55 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-01 10:27 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 13:33 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 13:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-13 14:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:04 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-13 20:52 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 22:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-14 00:03 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 10:53 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-14 17:54 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 19:48 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 11:16 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-13 21:54 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-16 15:24 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 21:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-16 21:46 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 12:38 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 15:03 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-17 19:25 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-20 00:16 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-20 16:10 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-01 10:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-02 02:49 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 07:40 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 16:46 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 09:10 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 18:15 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:27 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-14 01:50 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 10:58 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-13 22:54 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 16:45 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:34 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-14 05:17 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 13:46 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 07:05 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 14:37 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 16:12 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 16:32 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 19:05 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 19:15 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:43 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:45 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 23:46 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 00:56 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 17:58 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 20:38 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 19:52 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-12 22:56 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 21:57 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 21:21 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 22:46 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-13 09:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 12:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 11:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-13 00:25 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 22:20 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 17:02 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 01:53 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 03:54 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-13 10:52 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-13 23:16 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:44 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 17:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 00:21 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 20:40 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 03:59 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 21:35 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 11:27 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 12:17 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 12:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 16:49 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 19:30 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-14 23:28 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-14 21:30 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 21:56 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 21:59 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 01:26 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 12:01 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 11:45 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 15:57 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 18:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-16 02:42 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 20:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-15 23:57 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 23:22 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-16 12:40 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 00:01 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 16:53 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-17 11:09 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 13:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-17 15:15 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-17 08:34 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-17 03:19 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 12:34 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-17 17:58 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 21:40 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 14:32 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-19 01:19 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-19 09:18 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-19 12:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-19 12:47 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 14:08 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-19 17:22 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-19 20:34 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 00:35 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 00:04 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-20 01:03 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 02:44 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 15:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 17:02 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 21:07 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 11:20 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 12:29 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 16:40 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-20 23:33 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 00:01 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 13:22 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 14:12 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 14:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 16:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 17:09 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 21:09 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 23:20 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 12:26 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 15:46 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 16:03 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-19 22:28 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 10:01 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 12:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 14:58 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 17:05 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 12:45 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 02:04 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 13:21 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 11:26 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 12:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 14:21 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 15:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 17:36 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 15:37 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 17:22 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-21 17:21 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 19:04 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 18:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 20:36 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 20:36 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 23:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 22:55 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 17:19 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-21 19:17 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 20:49 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 18:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-20 19:24 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 21:30 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-20 21:44 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 23:43 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 00:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 02:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 18:55 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-21 07:22 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 01:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 15:10 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 14:17 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 13:22 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 17:29 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 18:43 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:02 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-22 08:57 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-22 12:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-22 17:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-22 16:54 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-22 21:09 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 12:46 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-23 09:37 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 14:21 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 22:40 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 18:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-24 22:26 +0000
Modelling self/this? (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-25 00:56 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 16:38 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement steve g <Sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 01:13 -0400
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 22:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-24 12:58 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 21:42 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-25 10:51 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 13:54 -0700
Re: Case-Sensitivity (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-25 20:30 +0000
Re: Case-Sensitivity (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-26 10:28 -0600
Re: Case-Sensitivity (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) steve g <Sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 02:26 -0400
Re: Case-Sensitivity (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-28 15:50 +0100
Re: Case-Sensitivity (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-28 10:34 -0600
Re: Case-Sensitivity (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 19:25 +0100
Re: Case-Sensitivity (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 19:35 +0100
Re: Case-Sensitivity (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 19:40 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 16:42 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-22 18:38 -0600
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-23 04:23 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 01:09 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:48 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 01:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-19 08:46 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-19 15:00 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-19 16:55 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 02:40 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 17:24 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 16:58 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 18:26 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 18:11 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 19:32 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:44 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-19 22:35 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 23:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 23:29 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-20 00:57 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 00:55 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 10:25 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 16:56 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 17:32 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 18:23 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 15:28 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 21:11 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 18:34 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-15 05:17 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 14:37 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-15 20:50 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 19:59 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 20:49 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 18:51 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.com> - 2026-10-14 11:04 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 19:47 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 13:58 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-15 12:08 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 14:23 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-14 14:35 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-01 11:02 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-11-01 12:09 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-02 02:50 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-16 03:36 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 16:38 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 21:09 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 23:14 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 23:01 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 08:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 10:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 10:49 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 16:30 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 02:12 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 19:55 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 11:00 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 12:21 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 14:04 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 23:05 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 07:22 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 11:42 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 16:15 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 14:34 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 16:47 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-13 00:15 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-10-12 17:02 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-13 20:04 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-10-13 17:28 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-14 02:05 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 17:17 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 17:37 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 17:34 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 18:46 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 19:52 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 19:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:29 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 00:53 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 18:14 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 22:35 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:14 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 22:36 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-10 13:14 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 19:50 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 20:13 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 15:54 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 03:41 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-11 09:51 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-11 11:41 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 16:44 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 16:56 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-11 21:26 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-10-11 22:12 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-13 22:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 23:19 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 11:19 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-21 09:29 -0600
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 00:33 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 09:51 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:07 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 12:11 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:20 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 14:16 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 17:03 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 16:32 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 17:37 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 16:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-26 19:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 20:03 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-28 05:56 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:06 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:21 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-28 14:24 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-28 15:52 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 17:45 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 17:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 18:06 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 18:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 18:37 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 19:03 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 20:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 19:59 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 21:13 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 20:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 22:37 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 22:40 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 14:46 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 11:51 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:18 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 21:49 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 14:23 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 14:25 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-27 22:39 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2026-10-27 22:44 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-27 23:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 16:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-27 20:06 -0600
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 19:21 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-28 16:00 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-28 10:35 -0600
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-28 11:59 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-28 23:25 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 08:28 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 08:32 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-29 22:16 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 16:08 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 08:31 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 09:13 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 09:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-28 11:09 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-28 09:04 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:25 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-28 00:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 08:23 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-28 12:02 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-28 23:31 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-11-05 06:39 -0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-11-06 12:26 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-06 19:47 -0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 22:51 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 21:32 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 21:47 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 21:11 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 14:17 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 21:50 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-26 23:37 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 00:01 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 00:28 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 00:55 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 09:50 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-27 01:12 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 18:43 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 09:37 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-27 11:51 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 12:57 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-27 12:14 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:22 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:30 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:48 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-27 13:54 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 15:19 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 15:20 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 15:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 15:36 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-27 17:13 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 18:45 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-27 18:16 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-27 19:21 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 20:42 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:16 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 21:36 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:53 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 08:05 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-30 11:16 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 14:43 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 21:55 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 15:01 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-29 08:30 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-29 08:38 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-29 08:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 12:31 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-31 10:54 +0100
Re: BizFuss (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-30 08:27 +0000
Re: BizFuss (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-30 11:47 +0000
Re: BizFuss (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-31 11:39 +0100
Re: BizFuss (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-31 12:21 +0000
Re: BizFuss (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-31 14:30 +0100
Re: BizFuss (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-31 13:38 +0000
Re: BizFuss (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-31 18:14 +0100
Re: BizFuss (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-31 13:27 +0000
Re: BizFuss (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-30 15:36 +0000
Re: BizFuss (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-30 12:04 -0700
Python is the universal language (Was: BizFuss (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement)) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-30 20:10 +0000
Re: BizFuss (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-31 11:36 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-28 05:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:45 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-29 07:34 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement steve g <Sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 02:27 -0400
Page 30 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 28 29 [30] 31 32 Next page →
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 21:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11boe8t$v04r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403586 |
fir pisze:
> bartc pisze:
>> On 26/10/2026 19:39, fir wrote:
>>> bartc pisze:
>>
>>>>> 1 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>> 2 divides by 2
>>>>> 3 divides by 3
>>>>> 4 divides by 2
>>>>> 5 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>> 6 divides by 2
>>>>> 6 divides by 3
>>>>> 7 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>> 8 divides by 2
>>>>> 9 divides by 3
>>>>> 10 divides by 2
>>>>> 11 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>> 12 divides by 2
>>>>> 12 divides by 3
>>>>> 13 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>> 14 divides by 2
>>>>> 15 divides by 3
>>>>> 16 divides by 2
>>>>> 17 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>> 18 divides by 2
>>>>> 18 divides by 3
>>>>> 19 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>
>>>> OK, thanks. So the pattern you're talking about is this:
>>>>
>>>> case (c1) {s1}
>>>> case (c2) {s2}
>>>> case (c3) {s3}
>>>> else {s4}
>>>>
>>>> where each of s1/s2/s3 is executed if the corresponding c1/c2/c3 is
>>>> true, independently of the others. At least one statement will be
>>>> executed in 7 of the 8 possible boolean combinations in this example.
>>>>
>>>> s4 is only executed when each of c1/c2/c3 is false. In other words:
>>>>
>>>> if (c1) {s1}
>>>> if (c2) {s2}
>>>> if (c3) {s3}
>>>> if (!c1 && !c2 && !c3) {s4}
>>>>
>>>> Assuming c1/c2/c3 are not modified by s1/s2/s3, but this is also
>>>> partly the case with your proposal.
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe it can be done like this:
>>>>
>>>> if (c1 || c2 || c3) {
>>>> s4
>>>> else if (c1) {s1)
>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>> The syntax will anyway need some work to tie all those case/if parts
>>>> together (as s2 for example could contain nested versions).
>>>>
>>>> Or you can forget about having to create a hard-to-grasp and
>>>> awkward- to-implement feature like this, and either use workarounds
>>>> like my C examples, or use another approach to the problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> hahaha
>>>
>>> lol ye use worakarounds instead of simple right solution
>>
>> The right solution to what problem? It took multiple posts before you
>> even managed to explain how your proposal is supposed to behave.
>>
>> (And then tomorrow it'll probably do something else.)
>>
>>> (this solution may come in some plavours as i said before, but this
>>> or ketword for reasons mentioned is not bad)
>>
>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or' keyword
>> to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real example.
>>
>
> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way becouse
> there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed combinations generally
> with sole if 's and else's
>
> as was showed here
>
>
>> Because I've not convinced it comes up often enough to be worth a
>> dedicated feature.
>>
>> Then, consider examples like this:
>>
>> case (a==b and c==d) {}
>> case (a==b and e==f) {}
>>
>> case (a<b) {}
>> case (a>=b) {}
>> case (c==d) {}
>>
>> You'll find, when converting to regular C, that detecting the case of
>> all false will mean checking all conditions, but now those will
>> contain duplicates. It is hard to cleanly express, which is a bad sign
>> as a prospective language feature.
>
>
> i dont like get what you talk here..overally this is a work for compiler
> to simplify it in output
>
>
> btw you think i should defend the things i was talking about -
> i more see its a waste of time if someone dont understand things
> it is for him if he understoods or not, i have not so much time to
> defend obvious things against the people who not care to much to
> understand things
>
> i would sy like its taking hours repairing a code that is
> good - whou would like to do it?
>
>
> generally such time spanding that you got good code and some weird
> people come nad put a bulshit its wrong and expect me to explain this is
> not its not a good time spending imo
>
> i would rather expect if some will find some 'bug ' in code then he
> first should understand it
overally instead of dwelling in this timewaste some could consider more
interesting things, for example if normal switch is like
"some true" then {} else {}
there could be considered usability of more cases
"all true" then {} else {}
"none true" then {} else {}
"only one true" then {} else {}
"only one false" then {} else {}
im not sure as to usability of this but if its usable then
it maybe can be encoded by more keywords instead of then
and else
like
case a<2 {}
case a>4 {}
case a==0 {}
case none {} //like default
case all {}
case some {}
so it seems that switch can be extended thsi way
(not sure as to usability of this)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 21:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11bofl7$vjil$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403586 |
On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
> bartc pisze:
>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or' keyword
>> to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real example.
>>
>
> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way becouse
> there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed combinations generally
> with sole if 's and else's
>
> as was showed here
There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
* To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
an existing language whose behaviour is well known
* To highlight the problem areas
For example:
if (f1()) {}
if (f2()) {}
...
if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
setting flags.
>> You'll find, when converting to regular C, that detecting the case of
>> all false will mean checking all conditions, but now those will
>> contain duplicates. It is hard to cleanly express, which is a bad sign
>> as a prospective language feature.
>
>
> i dont like get what you talk here..overally this is a work for compiler
> to simplify it in output
In my case the compiler is my job too!
> btw you think i should defend the things i was talking about -
> i more see its a waste of time if someone dont understand things
> it is for him if he understoods or not, i have not so much time to
> defend obvious things against the people who not care to much to
> understand things
>
> i would sy like its taking hours repairing a code that is
> good - whou would like to do it?
>
>
> generally such time spanding that you got good code and some weird
> people come nad put a bulshit its wrong and expect me to explain this is
> not its not a good time spending imo
> i would rather expect if some will find some 'bug ' in code then he
> first should understand it
Why bother posting in a public forum if you don't care about people
understand what you're on about? Do you not want people to engage?
Then post to alt.test instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 14:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11bog1o$vhqi$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403589 |
On 10/26/2026 2:11 PM, bartc wrote:
> On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
>> bartc pisze:
>
>>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or'
>>> keyword to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real
>>> example.
>>>
>>
>> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way becouse
>> there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed combinations
>> generally with sole if 's and else's
>>
>> as was showed here
> There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
>
> * To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
> an existing language whose behaviour is well known
>
> * To highlight the problem areas
>
> For example:
>
> if (f1()) {}
> if (f2()) {}
> ...
> if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
>
> Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
> setting flags.
So you call f1 and f2, then call if (!f1() && !f2()) {}. So, that is
your choice. Not the fault of C, right?
>
>
>>> You'll find, when converting to regular C, that detecting the case of
>>> all false will mean checking all conditions, but now those will
>>> contain duplicates. It is hard to cleanly express, which is a bad
>>> sign as a prospective language feature.
>>
>>
>> i dont like get what you talk here..overally this is a work for compiler
>> to simplify it in output
>
> In my case the compiler is my job too!
>
>> btw you think i should defend the things i was talking about -
>> i more see its a waste of time if someone dont understand things
>> it is for him if he understoods or not, i have not so much time to
>> defend obvious things against the people who not care to much to
>> understand things
>>
>> i would sy like its taking hours repairing a code that is
>> good - whou would like to do it?
>>
>>
>> generally such time spanding that you got good code and some weird
>> people come nad put a bulshit its wrong and expect me to explain this
>> is not its not a good time spending imo
>
>> i would rather expect if some will find some 'bug ' in code then he
>> first should understand it
>
> Why bother posting in a public forum if you don't care about people
> understand what you're on about? Do you not want people to engage?
>
> Then post to alt.test instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 21:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11bohun$10fjv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403590 |
On 26/10/2026 21:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 10/26/2026 2:11 PM, bartc wrote:
>> On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
>>> bartc pisze:
>>
>>>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or'
>>>> keyword to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real
>>>> example.
>>>>
>>>
>>> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way becouse
>>> there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed combinations
>>> generally with sole if 's and else's
>>>
>>> as was showed here
>> There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
>>
>> * To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
>> an existing language whose behaviour is well known
>>
>> * To highlight the problem areas
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> if (f1()) {}
>> if (f2()) {}
>> ...
>> if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
>>
>> Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
>> setting flags.
>
> So you call f1 and f2, then call if (!f1() && !f2()) {}. So, that is
> your choice. Not the fault of C, right?
It's not the fault of C. But the C illustrates the logic of this new
feature: it must only call the 'else' clause when none of the conditions
are true.
But if the most direct way of expressing it has this issue, then extra
workarounds are needed, for example:
flag=1;
if f1() {flag=0;...)
if f2() {flag=0;...)
if (flag) {}
(Note the logic here is slightly different: the else block is executed
when none of the previous blocks have been entered. Because conditionals
may have different values at this point. But we don't know the proper spec.)
This actually isn't too bad, but in that case, why do we even need this
new feature?
My main problem with it is that it is unintuitive and that its use-cases
are limited. It's also likely to morph into something else when fir gets
bored with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 23:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bokna$1192k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403595 |
On 26/10/2026 22:50, bartc wrote:
> On 26/10/2026 21:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 10/26/2026 2:11 PM, bartc wrote:
>>> On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>
>>>>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or'
>>>>> keyword to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real
>>>>> example.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way
>>>> becouse there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed
>>>> combinations generally with sole if 's and else's
>>>>
>>>> as was showed here
>>> There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
>>>
>>> * To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
>>> an existing language whose behaviour is well known
>>>
>>> * To highlight the problem areas
>>>
>>> For example:
>>>
>>> if (f1()) {}
>>> if (f2()) {}
>>> ...
>>> if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
>>>
>>> Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
>>> setting flags.
>>
>> So you call f1 and f2, then call if (!f1() && !f2()) {}. So, that is
>> your choice. Not the fault of C, right?
>
> It's not the fault of C. But the C illustrates the logic of this new
> feature: it must only call the 'else' clause when none of the conditions
> are true.
>
> But if the most direct way of expressing it has this issue, then extra
> workarounds are needed, for example:
>
> flag=1;
> if f1() {flag=0;...)
> if f2() {flag=0;...)
> if (flag) {}
>
> (Note the logic here is slightly different: the else block is executed
> when none of the previous blocks have been entered. Because conditionals
> may have different values at this point. But we don't know the proper
> spec.)
>
> This actually isn't too bad, but in that case, why do we even need this
> new feature?
>
> My main problem with it is that it is unintuitive and that its use-cases
> are limited. It's also likely to morph into something else when fir gets
> bored with it.
>
>
#define fir_switch _Bool flag = 1; {
#define or_if(...) } if (__VA_ARGS__) { flag = 0;
#define otherwise } if (!flag)
Then Fir can write :
fir_switch
or_if (x % 2 == 0) printf("\n divides by 2");
or_if (x % 3 == 0) printf("\n divides by 3");
otherwise printf("\n does not divide by 2 or 3");
I haven't tested the defines, and I think it is a terrible idea (it
should at least be called "and_if"), but it comes very close to the
syntax and semantics Fir appears to want.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 00:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bom51$11u3m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403599 |
David Brown pisze:
> On 26/10/2026 22:50, bartc wrote:
>> On 26/10/2026 21:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 10/26/2026 2:11 PM, bartc wrote:
>>>> On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
>>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>
>>>>>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or'
>>>>>> keyword to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real
>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way
>>>>> becouse there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed
>>>>> combinations generally with sole if 's and else's
>>>>>
>>>>> as was showed here
>>>> There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
>>>>
>>>> * To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
>>>> an existing language whose behaviour is well known
>>>>
>>>> * To highlight the problem areas
>>>>
>>>> For example:
>>>>
>>>> if (f1()) {}
>>>> if (f2()) {}
>>>> ...
>>>> if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
>>>>
>>>> Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
>>>> setting flags.
>>>
>>> So you call f1 and f2, then call if (!f1() && !f2()) {}. So, that is
>>> your choice. Not the fault of C, right?
>>
>> It's not the fault of C. But the C illustrates the logic of this new
>> feature: it must only call the 'else' clause when none of the
>> conditions are true.
>>
>> But if the most direct way of expressing it has this issue, then extra
>> workarounds are needed, for example:
>>
>> flag=1;
>> if f1() {flag=0;...)
>> if f2() {flag=0;...)
>> if (flag) {}
>>
>> (Note the logic here is slightly different: the else block is executed
>> when none of the previous blocks have been entered. Because
>> conditionals may have different values at this point. But we don't
>> know the proper spec.)
>>
>> This actually isn't too bad, but in that case, why do we even need
>> this new feature?
>>
>> My main problem with it is that it is unintuitive and that its
>> use-cases are limited. It's also likely to morph into something else
>> when fir gets bored with it.
>>
>>
>
> #define fir_switch _Bool flag = 1; {
> #define or_if(...) } if (__VA_ARGS__) { flag = 0;
> #define otherwise } if (!flag)
>
> Then Fir can write :
>
> fir_switch
> or_if (x % 2 == 0) printf("\n divides by 2");
> or_if (x % 3 == 0) printf("\n divides by 3");
> otherwise printf("\n does not divide by 2 or 3");
>
> I haven't tested the defines, and I think it is a terrible idea (it
> should at least be called "and_if"), but it comes very close to the
> syntax and semantics Fir appears to want.
>
>
totally no, its not also i want this i just makec conclusion if-else
system is flawed
you may ment it on some ways lik
if {}
or
if {}
else {}
or
case {}
case {}
otherwise {}
in first case you got heneral system of logic operators applied to group
of ifs (coz you may use not olny or but also and or not etc),
in second you got like predefined keywords for "or or or" case
(here in fact otherwise keyword means use or for cases and of 0
evaluate otherwise)
i thing you will nned a general but predefined may be also handy so
eventually language could implement both (such as it has many forms for
loops to increase intentions readability)
flag is a nonsense its liek implementing else with flag
int not = 1;
if (a>2) {not =0; //...}
if(not) {}
;C
NOTE btw this case not only shows flaw in if rlse system but is just
natural fom of switch (both of them i mean "if or if else" and "case
case otherwise"..and imo thsi form is better than switch as its more
natural its grounded -its also shows lacks of switch so it shows both
if-else system is flawed and switch is flawed too
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 00:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bonn2$12f6n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403600 |
fir pisze:
> David Brown pisze:
>> On 26/10/2026 22:50, bartc wrote:
>>> On 26/10/2026 21:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 10/26/2026 2:11 PM, bartc wrote:
>>>>> On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
>>>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or'
>>>>>>> keyword to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a
>>>>>>> real example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way
>>>>>> becouse there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed
>>>>>> combinations generally with sole if 's and else's
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as was showed here
>>>>> There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
>>>>>
>>>>> * To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
>>>>> an existing language whose behaviour is well known
>>>>>
>>>>> * To highlight the problem areas
>>>>>
>>>>> For example:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (f1()) {}
>>>>> if (f2()) {}
>>>>> ...
>>>>> if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
>>>>>
>>>>> Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
>>>>> setting flags.
>>>>
>>>> So you call f1 and f2, then call if (!f1() && !f2()) {}. So, that is
>>>> your choice. Not the fault of C, right?
>>>
>>> It's not the fault of C. But the C illustrates the logic of this new
>>> feature: it must only call the 'else' clause when none of the
>>> conditions are true.
>>>
>>> But if the most direct way of expressing it has this issue, then
>>> extra workarounds are needed, for example:
>>>
>>> flag=1;
>>> if f1() {flag=0;...)
>>> if f2() {flag=0;...)
>>> if (flag) {}
>>>
>>> (Note the logic here is slightly different: the else block is
>>> executed when none of the previous blocks have been entered. Because
>>> conditionals may have different values at this point. But we don't
>>> know the proper spec.)
>>>
>>> This actually isn't too bad, but in that case, why do we even need
>>> this new feature?
>>>
>>> My main problem with it is that it is unintuitive and that its
>>> use-cases are limited. It's also likely to morph into something else
>>> when fir gets bored with it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> #define fir_switch _Bool flag = 1; {
>> #define or_if(...) } if (__VA_ARGS__) { flag = 0;
>> #define otherwise } if (!flag)
>>
>> Then Fir can write :
>>
>> fir_switch
>> or_if (x % 2 == 0) printf("\n divides by 2");
>> or_if (x % 3 == 0) printf("\n divides by 3");
>> otherwise printf("\n does not divide by 2 or 3");
>>
>> I haven't tested the defines, and I think it is a terrible idea (it
>> should at least be called "and_if"), but it comes very close to the
>> syntax and semantics Fir appears to want.
>>
>>
>
> totally no, its not also i want this i just makec conclusion if-else
> system is flawed
>
> you may ment it on some ways lik
>
> if {}
> or
> if {}
> else {}
>
> or
>
> case {}
> case {}
> otherwise {}
>
> in first case you got heneral system of logic operators applied to group
> of ifs (coz you may use not olny or but also and or not etc),
>
> in second you got like predefined keywords for "or or or" case
> (here in fact otherwise keyword means use or for cases and of 0
> evaluate otherwise)
>
> i thing you will nned a general but predefined may be also handy so
> eventually language could implement both (such as it has many forms for
> loops to increase intentions readability)
>
>
> flag is a nonsense its liek implementing else with flag
>
> int not = 1;
>
> if (a>2) {not =0; //...}
> if(not) {}
>
> ;C
>
> NOTE btw this case not only shows flaw in if rlse system but is just
> natural fom of switch (both of them i mean "if or if else" and "case
> case otherwise"..and imo thsi form is better than switch as its more
> natural its grounded -its also shows lacks of switch so it shows both
> if-else system is flawed and switch is flawed too
>
overally switch in c imo is in fact quite like goto not like if
but even if so its not general as it should bcouse if so then you should
also be jumping back
switch n //goto 1 2 3 if other goto default
case 1:
case 2:
case 4:
default:
//if so it should allow amany switches and jumps back
int s =1;
case 2:
switch s
case 1:
int b =2
case 3:
case 4:
switch b
case 5:
such switch i would more like as its much ore logical and right
but if so switch sjould be eventually named goto
(eventually goto() to make difference withh jumping under labe a and
value of (a) (though it also may staj switch for illustration here) and
case may be removed, defaul should be ranemed by other which more fits
the meaning
foo()
{
int s =1;
2:
switch s
1:
int b =2
3:
4:
switch b
other:
}
it illustrates soe things, like this c swich syntax should be
switch s;
1:
2:
3:
other:
break is not a part of it indeed it just is to make jump outside a block
*could eventually be also continue
if so some could at block at free will
switch s;
1: {2:
3: break;
other: continue; }
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 00:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bop90$12ukl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403600 |
fir pisze:
> David Brown pisze:
>> On 26/10/2026 22:50, bartc wrote:
>>> On 26/10/2026 21:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 10/26/2026 2:11 PM, bartc wrote:
>>>>> On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
>>>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or'
>>>>>>> keyword to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a
>>>>>>> real example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way
>>>>>> becouse there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed
>>>>>> combinations generally with sole if 's and else's
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as was showed here
>>>>> There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
>>>>>
>>>>> * To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
>>>>> an existing language whose behaviour is well known
>>>>>
>>>>> * To highlight the problem areas
>>>>>
>>>>> For example:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (f1()) {}
>>>>> if (f2()) {}
>>>>> ...
>>>>> if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
>>>>>
>>>>> Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
>>>>> setting flags.
>>>>
>>>> So you call f1 and f2, then call if (!f1() && !f2()) {}. So, that is
>>>> your choice. Not the fault of C, right?
>>>
>>> It's not the fault of C. But the C illustrates the logic of this new
>>> feature: it must only call the 'else' clause when none of the
>>> conditions are true.
>>>
>>> But if the most direct way of expressing it has this issue, then
>>> extra workarounds are needed, for example:
>>>
>>> flag=1;
>>> if f1() {flag=0;...)
>>> if f2() {flag=0;...)
>>> if (flag) {}
>>>
>>> (Note the logic here is slightly different: the else block is
>>> executed when none of the previous blocks have been entered. Because
>>> conditionals may have different values at this point. But we don't
>>> know the proper spec.)
>>>
>>> This actually isn't too bad, but in that case, why do we even need
>>> this new feature?
>>>
>>> My main problem with it is that it is unintuitive and that its
>>> use-cases are limited. It's also likely to morph into something else
>>> when fir gets bored with it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> #define fir_switch _Bool flag = 1; {
>> #define or_if(...) } if (__VA_ARGS__) { flag = 0;
>> #define otherwise } if (!flag)
>>
>> Then Fir can write :
>>
>> fir_switch
>> or_if (x % 2 == 0) printf("\n divides by 2");
>> or_if (x % 3 == 0) printf("\n divides by 3");
>> otherwise printf("\n does not divide by 2 or 3");
>>
>> I haven't tested the defines, and I think it is a terrible idea (it
>> should at least be called "and_if"), but it comes very close to the
>> syntax and semantics Fir appears to want.
>>
>>
>
> totally no, its not also i want this i just makec conclusion if-else
> system is flawed
>
> you may ment it on some ways lik
>
> if {}
> or
> if {}
> else {}
>
> or
>
> case {}
> case {}
> otherwise {}
>
> in first case you got heneral system of logic operators applied to group
> of ifs (coz you may use not olny or but also and or not etc),
>
> in second you got like predefined keywords for "or or or" case
> (here in fact otherwise keyword means use or for cases and of 0
> evaluate otherwise)
>
> i thing you will nned a general but predefined may be also handy so
> eventually language could implement both (such as it has many forms for
> loops to increase intentions readability)
>
>
> flag is a nonsense its liek implementing else with flag
>
> int not = 1;
>
> if (a>2) {not =0; //...}
> if(not) {}
>
> ;C
>
> NOTE btw this case not only shows flaw in if rlse system but is just
> natural fom of switch (both of them i mean "if or if else" and "case
> case otherwise"..and imo thsi form is better than switch as its more
> natural its grounded -its also shows lacks of switch so it shows both
> if-else system is flawed and switch is flawed too
>
>
>
btw example for and
if(x>0) printf("right"); and if(x<w) printf("left"); else printf("
outside");
this if im not wrong will print
"right"
"right outside"
"left"
"left outside"
"right left"
if im not wrong also this you will not whow with normal if elses
of witch c switch wiyhout more complex code
(i not checked it though)
if so it just shows that small additions of or and and genarating that
usecases justify those additions and its omitions are kinda flaw in if
else system
you may rarely need that but there are cases when you may need that
so the lack of it its arrtificial (as if-else is not complete)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 09:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bpok0$1bmge$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403602 |
fir pisze:
> if(x>0) printf("right"); and if(x<w) printf("left"); else printf("
> outside");
this shows bytw one thing
such things as
if(x>0 and x<w) inside() else outside()
are limited becouse this reduces whole expresion in clase to one binary
so if you use such conventions as
if(x>0) and if(x<w)
of
if(x>0, x<w)
you gave more options to define predefined keywords like all/none/some/one
or even some my write its own function though as the function also
reduces it is then not possible in such case to do
if(x>0, x<w) all {} none {} some {}
it is add more branches at once
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 01:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11botqn$14bb7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403599 |
On 26/10/2026 22:37, David Brown wrote:
> On 26/10/2026 22:50, bartc wrote:
>> On 26/10/2026 21:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 10/26/2026 2:11 PM, bartc wrote:
>>>> On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
>>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>
>>>>>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or'
>>>>>> keyword to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real
>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way
>>>>> becouse there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed
>>>>> combinations generally with sole if 's and else's
>>>>>
>>>>> as was showed here
>>>> There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
>>>>
>>>> * To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
>>>> an existing language whose behaviour is well known
>>>>
>>>> * To highlight the problem areas
>>>>
>>>> For example:
>>>>
>>>> if (f1()) {}
>>>> if (f2()) {}
>>>> ...
>>>> if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
>>>>
>>>> Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
>>>> setting flags.
>>>
>>> So you call f1 and f2, then call if (!f1() && !f2()) {}. So, that is
>>> your choice. Not the fault of C, right?
>>
>> It's not the fault of C. But the C illustrates the logic of this new
>> feature: it must only call the 'else' clause when none of the
>> conditions are true.
>>
>> But if the most direct way of expressing it has this issue, then extra
>> workarounds are needed, for example:
>>
>> flag=1;
>> if f1() {flag=0;...)
>> if f2() {flag=0;...)
>> if (flag) {}
>>
>> (Note the logic here is slightly different: the else block is executed
>> when none of the previous blocks have been entered. Because
>> conditionals may have different values at this point. But we don't
>> know the proper spec.)
>>
>> This actually isn't too bad, but in that case, why do we even need
>> this new feature?
>>
>> My main problem with it is that it is unintuitive and that its use-
>> cases are limited. It's also likely to morph into something else when
>> fir gets bored with it.
>>
>>
>
> #define fir_switch _Bool flag = 1; {
> #define or_if(...) } if (__VA_ARGS__) { flag = 0;
> #define otherwise } if (!flag)
>
> Then Fir can write :
>
> fir_switch
> or_if (x % 2 == 0) printf("\n divides by 2");
> or_if (x % 3 == 0) printf("\n divides by 3");
> otherwise printf("\n does not divide by 2 or 3");
>
> I haven't tested the defines, and I think it is a terrible idea (it
> should at least be called "and_if"), but it comes very close to the
> syntax and semantics Fir appears to want.
It looks pretty good and it seems to work (the !flag needs the reverse
logic). The 'and_if' makes more sense too.
But of course it's not good enough for fir; there's always something.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 18:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11bovj7$14mv7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403603 |
On 10/26/2026 6:12 PM, bartc wrote:
> On 26/10/2026 22:37, David Brown wrote:
>> On 26/10/2026 22:50, bartc wrote:
>>> On 26/10/2026 21:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 10/26/2026 2:11 PM, bartc wrote:
>>>>> On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
>>>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or'
>>>>>>> keyword to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a
>>>>>>> real example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way
>>>>>> becouse there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed
>>>>>> combinations generally with sole if 's and else's
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as was showed here
>>>>> There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
>>>>>
>>>>> * To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
>>>>> an existing language whose behaviour is well known
>>>>>
>>>>> * To highlight the problem areas
>>>>>
>>>>> For example:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (f1()) {}
>>>>> if (f2()) {}
>>>>> ...
>>>>> if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
>>>>>
>>>>> Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
>>>>> setting flags.
>>>>
>>>> So you call f1 and f2, then call if (!f1() && !f2()) {}. So, that is
>>>> your choice. Not the fault of C, right?
>>>
>>> It's not the fault of C. But the C illustrates the logic of this new
>>> feature: it must only call the 'else' clause when none of the
>>> conditions are true.
>>>
>>> But if the most direct way of expressing it has this issue, then
>>> extra workarounds are needed, for example:
>>>
>>> flag=1;
>>> if f1() {flag=0;...)
>>> if f2() {flag=0;...)
>>> if (flag) {}
>>>
>>> (Note the logic here is slightly different: the else block is
>>> executed when none of the previous blocks have been entered. Because
>>> conditionals may have different values at this point. But we don't
>>> know the proper spec.)
>>>
>>> This actually isn't too bad, but in that case, why do we even need
>>> this new feature?
>>>
>>> My main problem with it is that it is unintuitive and that its use-
>>> cases are limited. It's also likely to morph into something else when
>>> fir gets bored with it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> #define fir_switch _Bool flag = 1; {
>> #define or_if(...) } if (__VA_ARGS__) { flag = 0;
>> #define otherwise } if (!flag)
>>
>> Then Fir can write :
>>
>> fir_switch
>> or_if (x % 2 == 0) printf("\n divides by 2");
>> or_if (x % 3 == 0) printf("\n divides by 3");
>> otherwise printf("\n does not divide by 2 or 3");
>>
>> I haven't tested the defines, and I think it is a terrible idea (it
>> should at least be called "and_if"), but it comes very close to the
>> syntax and semantics Fir appears to want.
> It looks pretty good and it seems to work (the !flag needs the reverse
> logic). The 'and_if' makes more sense too.
>
> But of course it's not good enough for fir; there's always something.
The never ending story?
https://youtu.be/lHytjEj7B9g?list=RDlHytjEj7B9g
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 09:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bpnsh$1ba6b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403603 |
bartc pisze:
> On 26/10/2026 22:37, David Brown wrote:
>> On 26/10/2026 22:50, bartc wrote:
>>> On 26/10/2026 21:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 10/26/2026 2:11 PM, bartc wrote:
>>>>> On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
>>>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or'
>>>>>>> keyword to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a
>>>>>>> real example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way
>>>>>> becouse there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed
>>>>>> combinations generally with sole if 's and else's
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as was showed here
>>>>> There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
>>>>>
>>>>> * To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
>>>>> an existing language whose behaviour is well known
>>>>>
>>>>> * To highlight the problem areas
>>>>>
>>>>> For example:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (f1()) {}
>>>>> if (f2()) {}
>>>>> ...
>>>>> if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
>>>>>
>>>>> Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
>>>>> setting flags.
>>>>
>>>> So you call f1 and f2, then call if (!f1() && !f2()) {}. So, that is
>>>> your choice. Not the fault of C, right?
>>>
>>> It's not the fault of C. But the C illustrates the logic of this new
>>> feature: it must only call the 'else' clause when none of the
>>> conditions are true.
>>>
>>> But if the most direct way of expressing it has this issue, then
>>> extra workarounds are needed, for example:
>>>
>>> flag=1;
>>> if f1() {flag=0;...)
>>> if f2() {flag=0;...)
>>> if (flag) {}
>>>
>>> (Note the logic here is slightly different: the else block is
>>> executed when none of the previous blocks have been entered. Because
>>> conditionals may have different values at this point. But we don't
>>> know the proper spec.)
>>>
>>> This actually isn't too bad, but in that case, why do we even need
>>> this new feature?
>>>
>>> My main problem with it is that it is unintuitive and that its use-
>>> cases are limited. It's also likely to morph into something else when
>>> fir gets bored with it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> #define fir_switch _Bool flag = 1; {
>> #define or_if(...) } if (__VA_ARGS__) { flag = 0;
>> #define otherwise } if (!flag)
>>
>> Then Fir can write :
>>
>> fir_switch
>> or_if (x % 2 == 0) printf("\n divides by 2");
>> or_if (x % 3 == 0) printf("\n divides by 3");
>> otherwise printf("\n does not divide by 2 or 3");
>>
>> I haven't tested the defines, and I think it is a terrible idea (it
>> should at least be called "and_if"), but it comes very close to the
>> syntax and semantics Fir appears to want.
> It looks pretty good and it seems to work (the !flag needs the reverse
> logic). The 'and_if' makes more sense too.
>
> But of course it's not good enough for fir; there's always something.
blame the scienco fo doing just like tat
(one solution is a solution untill you find better one) ..im just doing
science here so its science to blame, i got no problem with that
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 11:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11bq389$1fik5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403609 |
On 27/10/2026 08:37, fir wrote:
> bartc pisze:
>> On 26/10/2026 22:37, David Brown wrote:
>>> #define fir_switch _Bool flag = 1; {
>>> #define or_if(...) } if (__VA_ARGS__) { flag = 0;
>>> #define otherwise } if (!flag)
>>>
>>> Then Fir can write :
>>>
>>> fir_switch
>>> or_if (x % 2 == 0) printf("\n divides by 2");
>>> or_if (x % 3 == 0) printf("\n divides by 3");
>>> otherwise printf("\n does not divide by 2 or 3");
>>>
>>> I haven't tested the defines, and I think it is a terrible idea (it
>>> should at least be called "and_if"), but it comes very close to the
>>> syntax and semantics Fir appears to want.
>> It looks pretty good and it seems to work (the !flag needs the reverse
>> logic). The 'and_if' makes more sense too.
>>
>> But of course it's not good enough for fir; there's always something.
>
> blame the scienco fo doing just like tat
>
> (one solution is a solution untill you find better one) ..im just doing
> science here so its science to blame, i got no problem with that
I've no idea what you mean. And I've no idea what it is you're actually
after. I doubt anyone has. I doubt /you/ do!
You suggest some new statement type, in a C language forum, somebody
shows how to implement it in standard C, but your response is:
"blame the scienco fo doing just like tat"
Not:
"Wow, thanks! That's perfect."
My guess is that you're not interested in actual solutions. You're just
thinking up one random idea after another. You don't care for anyone
else's opinion or input.
So again, why bother posting here?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 12:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bq3je$1fmbb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403614 |
bartc pisze:
> On 27/10/2026 08:37, fir wrote:
>> bartc pisze:
>>> On 26/10/2026 22:37, David Brown wrote:
>
>>>> #define fir_switch _Bool flag = 1; {
>>>> #define or_if(...) } if (__VA_ARGS__) { flag = 0;
>>>> #define otherwise } if (!flag)
>>>>
>>>> Then Fir can write :
>>>>
>>>> fir_switch
>>>> or_if (x % 2 == 0) printf("\n divides by 2");
>>>> or_if (x % 3 == 0) printf("\n divides by 3");
>>>> otherwise printf("\n does not divide by 2 or 3");
>>>>
>>>> I haven't tested the defines, and I think it is a terrible idea (it
>>>> should at least be called "and_if"), but it comes very close to the
>>>> syntax and semantics Fir appears to want.
>>> It looks pretty good and it seems to work (the !flag needs the
>>> reverse logic). The 'and_if' makes more sense too.
>>>
>>> But of course it's not good enough for fir; there's always something.
>>
>> blame the scienco fo doing just like tat
>>
>> (one solution is a solution untill you find better one) ..im just
>> doing science here so its science to blame, i got no problem with that
>
> I've no idea what you mean. And I've no idea what it is you're actually
> after. I doubt anyone has. I doubt /you/ do!
>
> You suggest some new statement type, in a C language forum, somebody
> shows how to implement it in standard C, but your response is:
>
> "blame the scienco fo doing just like tat"
>
> Not:
>
> "Wow, thanks! That's perfect."
>
> My guess is that you're not interested in actual solutions. You're just
> thinking up one random idea after another. You don't care for anyone
> else's opinion or input.
>
as to ideas I got an idea. Is your goal to stir up trouble here
coz what yu say is like that and this is making bad content here
science does that science is finding a solution then it finds another
solution so you may blame science and say you got idea what science is
actually after
im just doin science - come to some conclusions than after that come to
another conclusion...
why your should problems with science should interest me? im here for
doin science not to analyse personal problems of clc users
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 13:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bq4bn$1g0db$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403616 |
fir pisze:
> bartc pisze:
>> On 27/10/2026 08:37, fir wrote:
>>> bartc pisze:
>>>> On 26/10/2026 22:37, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>>>> #define fir_switch _Bool flag = 1; {
>>>>> #define or_if(...) } if (__VA_ARGS__) { flag = 0;
>>>>> #define otherwise } if (!flag)
>>>>>
>>>>> Then Fir can write :
>>>>>
>>>>> fir_switch
>>>>> or_if (x % 2 == 0) printf("\n divides by 2");
>>>>> or_if (x % 3 == 0) printf("\n divides by 3");
>>>>> otherwise printf("\n does not divide by 2 or 3");
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't tested the defines, and I think it is a terrible idea (it
>>>>> should at least be called "and_if"), but it comes very close to the
>>>>> syntax and semantics Fir appears to want.
>>>> It looks pretty good and it seems to work (the !flag needs the
>>>> reverse logic). The 'and_if' makes more sense too.
>>>>
>>>> But of course it's not good enough for fir; there's always something.
>>>
>>> blame the scienco fo doing just like tat
>>>
>>> (one solution is a solution untill you find better one) ..im just
>>> doing science here so its science to blame, i got no problem with that
>>
>> I've no idea what you mean. And I've no idea what it is you're
>> actually after. I doubt anyone has. I doubt /you/ do!
>>
>> You suggest some new statement type, in a C language forum, somebody
>> shows how to implement it in standard C, but your response is:
>>
>> "blame the scienco fo doing just like tat"
>>
>> Not:
>>
>> "Wow, thanks! That's perfect."
>>
>> My guess is that you're not interested in actual solutions. You're
>> just thinking up one random idea after another. You don't care for
>> anyone else's opinion or input.
>>
> as to ideas I got an idea. Is your goal to stir up trouble here
>
im not tsure as this translation - in polish it is "robić piane" (make
foam), "bić piane" (it is making nonsense fights/tryin to make nonsense
fights/rumbles) like some drunkyard in a bar
generalli is like i say sin 90 degrees is 1 and some come say "i dont
understand it!" "i sucpect your goal is bla bla bla" "i dont know what
youre after" ..."you say that but later you get bored and will go say
something other!"
its kinda limitedly preposterous and funny but if it consumes hours its
timewaste and making useles foam (over wuite scientific statements here )
youre like more interesting to make foam instead of core topics -
a bit of foam is not always something totally bad (depends) but
if it takes hours i become pity for hours wasted where i could generate
models or write some procedures or just rest
> coz what yu say is like that and this is making bad content here
>
>
> science does that science is finding a solution then it finds another
> solution so you may blame science and say you got idea what science is
> actually after
>
>
> im just doin science - come to some conclusions than after that come to
> another conclusion...
>
> why your should problems with science should interest me? im here for
> doin science not to analyse personal problems of clc users
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 12:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11bq4jq$1g3s1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403616 |
On 27/10/2026 11:57, fir wrote: > bartc pisze: >> On 27/10/2026 08:37, fir wrote: >>> blame the scienco fo doing just like tat >>> >>> (one solution is a solution untill you find better one) ..im just >>> doing science here so its science to blame, i got no problem with that >> >> I've no idea what you mean. And I've no idea what it is you're >> actually after. I doubt anyone has. I doubt /you/ do! >> >> You suggest some new statement type, in a C language forum, somebody >> shows how to implement it in standard C, but your response is: >> >> "blame the scienco fo doing just like tat" >> >> Not: >> >> "Wow, thanks! That's perfect." >> >> My guess is that you're not interested in actual solutions. You're >> just thinking up one random idea after another. You don't care for >> anyone else's opinion or input. >> > coz what yu say is like that and this is making bad content here > > > science does that science is finding a solution then it finds another > solution so you may blame science and say you got idea what science is > actually after > > > im just doin science - come to some conclusions than after that come to > another conclusion... > > why your should problems with science should interest me? im here for > doin science not to analyse personal problems of clc usersYour 'science' seems to be writing mostly meaningless drivel and then posting reams of it in comp.lang.c as though it was your personal blog. You don't seem to expect any feedback either, and tend to attack people who offer opinions or try to make sense of some of your ideas. I should have known from past experience that that never ends well. 'There's always something'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 13:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bq52k$1g9ji$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403618 |
bartc pisze: > On 27/10/2026 11:57, fir wrote: >> bartc pisze: >>> On 27/10/2026 08:37, fir wrote: > >>>> blame the scienco fo doing just like tat >>>> >>>> (one solution is a solution untill you find better one) ..im just >>>> doing science here so its science to blame, i got no problem with that >>> >>> I've no idea what you mean. And I've no idea what it is you're >>> actually after. I doubt anyone has. I doubt /you/ do! >>> >>> You suggest some new statement type, in a C language forum, somebody >>> shows how to implement it in standard C, but your response is: >>> >>> "blame the scienco fo doing just like tat" >>> >>> Not: >>> >>> "Wow, thanks! That's perfect." >>> >>> My guess is that you're not interested in actual solutions. You're >>> just thinking up one random idea after another. You don't care for >>> anyone else's opinion or input. >>> > >> coz what yu say is like that and this is making bad content here >> >> >> science does that science is finding a solution then it finds another >> solution so you may blame science and say you got idea what science is >> actually after >> >> >> im just doin science - come to some conclusions than after that come >> to another conclusion... >> >> why your should problems with science should interest me? im here for >> doin science not to analyse personal problems of clc usersYour >> 'science' seems to be writing mostly meaningless drivel and then > posting reams of it in comp.lang.c as though it was your personal blog. > > You don't seem to expect any feedback either, and tend to attack people > who offer opinions or try to make sense of some of your ideas. > > I should have known from past experience that that never ends well. > 'There's always something'. im not posting as personal blog and i answe a lot... the problem is you should first make soem work and understand what im talkin about and then answer it not just "i dont understand it so i will make z 10 hours of foam here" imagine what would come if anybody would start doing that agains ant book move piece of science in book etc... the amounts of foam would cover the sun :/ that would be word of foam
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 13:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bq5gh$1gfee$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403619 |
fir pisze: > bartc pisze: >> On 27/10/2026 11:57, fir wrote: >>> bartc pisze: >>>> On 27/10/2026 08:37, fir wrote: >> >>>>> blame the scienco fo doing just like tat >>>>> >>>>> (one solution is a solution untill you find better one) ..im just >>>>> doing science here so its science to blame, i got no problem with that >>>> >>>> I've no idea what you mean. And I've no idea what it is you're >>>> actually after. I doubt anyone has. I doubt /you/ do! >>>> >>>> You suggest some new statement type, in a C language forum, somebody >>>> shows how to implement it in standard C, but your response is: >>>> >>>> "blame the scienco fo doing just like tat" >>>> >>>> Not: >>>> >>>> "Wow, thanks! That's perfect." >>>> >>>> My guess is that you're not interested in actual solutions. You're >>>> just thinking up one random idea after another. You don't care for >>>> anyone else's opinion or input. >>>> >> >>> coz what yu say is like that and this is making bad content here >>> >>> >>> science does that science is finding a solution then it finds another >>> solution so you may blame science and say you got idea what science >>> is actually after >>> >>> >>> im just doin science - come to some conclusions than after that come >>> to another conclusion... >>> >>> why your should problems with science should interest me? im here for >>> doin science not to analyse personal problems of clc usersYour >>> 'science' seems to be writing mostly meaningless drivel and then >> posting reams of it in comp.lang.c as though it was your personal blog. >> >> You don't seem to expect any feedback either, and tend to attack >> people who offer opinions or try to make sense of some of your ideas. >> >> I should have known from past experience that that never ends well. >> 'There's always something'. > > > im not posting as personal blog and i answe a lot... the problem is you > should first make soem work and understand what im talkin about and then > answer it not just "i dont understand it so i will make z 10 hours of > foam here" > > imagine what would come if anybody would start doing that agains ant > book move piece of science in book etc... > > the amounts of foam would cover the sun :/ that would be word of foam also note i got a break (i dont know maybe like whole week a week a go and not posted here the group het ess active far ore bored becouse not much interesting topics appear so its better for me post some things and keep it more active/alive especially i got weary will make some few months of break again probbaly and it may be even dangerous for this group livehood maybe (esp now its no easy to get to usenet i think) so the attemots f keeping it more alive should be imo treated as good not bad but sparkling new topics and making foam is not the same.. as i sait i will try to code and post here up till end of year - what comes later i dont know (im not fully sure if i realize those plans being here yet whole 2 months as i may get weary also)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 13:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bq6in$1gs1d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403618 |
bartc pisze: > On 27/10/2026 11:57, fir wrote: >> bartc pisze: >>> On 27/10/2026 08:37, fir wrote: > >>>> blame the scienco fo doing just like tat >>>> >>>> (one solution is a solution untill you find better one) ..im just >>>> doing science here so its science to blame, i got no problem with that >>> >>> I've no idea what you mean. And I've no idea what it is you're >>> actually after. I doubt anyone has. I doubt /you/ do! >>> >>> You suggest some new statement type, in a C language forum, somebody >>> shows how to implement it in standard C, but your response is: >>> >>> "blame the scienco fo doing just like tat" >>> >>> Not: >>> >>> "Wow, thanks! That's perfect." >>> >>> My guess is that you're not interested in actual solutions. You're >>> just thinking up one random idea after another. You don't care for >>> anyone else's opinion or input. >>> > >> coz what yu say is like that and this is making bad content here >> >> >> science does that science is finding a solution then it finds another >> solution so you may blame science and say you got idea what science is >> actually after >> >> >> im just doin science - come to some conclusions than after that come >> to another conclusion... >> >> why your should problems with science should interest me? im here for >> doin science not to analyse personal problems of clc usersYour >> 'science' seems to be writing mostly meaningless drivel and then > posting reams of it in comp.lang.c as though it was your personal blog. > > You don't seem to expect any feedback either, and tend to attack people > who offer opinions or try to make sense of some of your ideas. > > I should have known from past experience that that never ends well. > 'There's always something'. note btw on accusation you make foam you just make more foam (!) are you living in Foam Land ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 13:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bq6t8$1fqjc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403618 |
On 27/10/2026 13:14, bartc wrote: > On 27/10/2026 11:57, fir wrote: >> >> im just doin science - come to some conclusions than after that come >> to another conclusion... >> >> why your should problems with science should interest me? im here for >> doin science not to analyse personal problems of clc usersYour >> 'science' seems to be writing mostly meaningless drivel and then > posting reams of it in comp.lang.c as though it was your personal blog. > > You don't seem to expect any feedback either, and tend to attack people > who offer opinions or try to make sense of some of your ideas. > > I should have known from past experience that that never ends well. > 'There's always something'. Bart, I think you just have to give up here. You have tried hard to give Fir help on what he asked for, with admirable patience, but all you get back is insults and posts that look like a cat walked across his keyboard. The guy has no idea about what he wants (nor what science is), and can't express his half-baked thoughts. Sometimes he makes posts that can lead to interesting C-related discussions, but I think we are long past that in this thread.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 30 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 28 29 [30] 31 32 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web