Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #148634 > unrolled thread
| Started by | T <T@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-12-31 20:08 -0800 |
| Last post | 2020-01-21 16:44 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 193 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-31 20:08 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2019-12-31 23:50 -0500
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-01 03:28 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-01 03:49 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-01 13:26 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-01 04:34 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-01 13:56 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-01 05:04 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-01 14:18 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-01-01 13:21 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-01 14:26 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-01-01 13:19 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-01 14:24 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-01-01 14:56 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-01 16:06 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-01-01 15:44 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-01 16:54 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2020-01-01 08:07 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-01-01 14:19 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-01 15:28 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-01-02 11:06 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-02 10:19 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2020-01-02 13:33 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-01-02 13:55 +0000
Raku (Was: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2020-01-02 14:48 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-02 15:03 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-02 06:18 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? m.nasim85@gmail.com - 2020-01-02 01:26 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? F Russell <fr@random.info> - 2020-01-05 19:32 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-01-05 12:25 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? F Russell <fr@random.info> - 2020-01-07 00:33 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-01-07 01:11 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-01-06 22:32 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-01-07 10:08 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-07 06:24 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-07 06:30 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-07 06:42 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-07 12:47 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-01-07 21:20 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2020-01-07 21:53 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-07 14:01 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-07 14:22 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-01-07 22:31 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-08 00:27 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-08 08:13 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2020-01-07 06:33 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-07 06:38 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-07 06:49 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-01-07 16:38 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-01-07 10:31 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-07 10:44 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-07 19:54 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-11 10:24 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-01-11 14:23 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-01-21 04:21 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-21 05:06 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-07 10:59 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-01-07 19:21 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-07 11:36 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@delq.com> - 2020-01-06 18:02 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-07 10:55 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-06 23:34 -0500
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-01-06 22:30 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-01-05 16:30 -0500
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-06 02:07 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-06 07:57 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-07 08:03 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-07 08:11 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-01-07 10:09 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-07 11:12 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-01-07 11:09 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-07 13:45 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-01-07 13:06 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-07 14:14 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-01-07 16:27 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-07 17:53 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-01-07 08:55 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-01-07 05:19 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-11 19:11 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-01-11 19:09 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-11 20:18 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-01-11 20:00 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 07:02 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 00:32 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 09:38 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 01:09 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 10:48 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 01:57 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 11:02 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 02:09 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 12:45 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 03:54 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 13:13 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 04:35 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 13:38 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 04:44 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 13:49 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 04:59 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 14:03 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 05:21 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 14:35 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 05:46 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 15:11 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 06:41 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 16:15 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 08:11 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 08:19 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 17:42 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 17:40 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 09:04 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 18:05 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 09:13 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 18:16 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 09:25 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 18:26 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 09:21 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 18:25 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 09:31 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 18:33 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-01-12 13:21 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-13 09:16 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 04:28 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 13:36 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-13 04:39 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-13 15:22 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-13 05:10 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 15:10 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-01-13 07:31 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 16:34 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 06:59 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 16:32 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 17:17 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 18:13 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 09:19 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 18:22 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 09:29 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 18:34 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 09:40 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 18:42 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 09:56 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 19:19 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 10:21 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 19:25 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 10:46 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 08:02 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-15 01:04 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-15 01:25 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-15 06:37 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-15 10:49 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-02-04 01:15 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2020-02-04 01:48 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-02-04 02:29 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-02-04 03:05 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-02-04 04:07 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-02-04 04:59 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 08:51 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-13 15:19 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 06:47 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 06:51 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 09:35 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-13 21:48 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 12:54 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-13 13:38 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-01-14 02:30 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-14 02:40 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-14 02:47 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-14 03:52 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-14 04:00 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-01-14 14:20 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 02:21 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 12:50 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 04:14 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-01-12 14:23 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 16:16 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 08:13 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 17:43 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-01-12 17:42 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 18:43 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-01-12 18:04 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 19:31 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-01-12 21:18 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 13:53 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 19:36 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-01-12 20:56 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 10:04 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 02:05 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 12:43 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 03:46 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 12:51 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 03:58 -0800
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-12 13:14 +0100
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2020-01-07 13:03 +0000
Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-01-21 16:44 +0100
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-13 21:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qvil2g$ef2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #149040 |
On 13/01/2020 18:35, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Monday, 13 January 2020 14:19:59 UTC, David Brown wrote: >> >> So assuming a suitable compiler exists for your target, if you can do >> something in C you can do the same thing in C++. It is not going to be >> idiomatic C++, but it will work. >> > That's the point. It certainly is not the point you tried to make earlier - it is, in fact, the opposite. > We can write a "general purpose sort" in C using only > portable C code with no dependencies. Yes. And the same code will work in C++ - (almost) anything you can do in C, you can do equally well in C++ because you can use exactly the same code. > However if we move to C++, it is > no longer a general purpose sort. Of course it is a general purpose sort. That applies whether you mean taking the general purpose C sort and compiling it as C++, or if you mean writing a C++ template-style sort. > The C++ general purpose sort has to > be written with templates. Nonsense. > It's the only way of honouring the C++ > constructor / destructor / move system. > Nonsense. Templates are the best - clearest and most efficient - way to write a general-purpose sort in C++ that works with non-POD types. But they are not the only way - you could happily write a generic sort function that takes a "compare" and a "swap" function pointer as parameters, and use it with types that have non-trivial constructors and destructors. And the whole point of this branch was that anything you can do in C, you can do in C++. If you have a type in C that can be sorted by qsort, then it can be sorted by qsort in C++. And if you have a type in C that can't be sorted by qsort (perhaps because it contains pointers that reference other parts of the same object), then you can't sort it by qsort in C++ either. But you /can/ sort it with a template-based sort. And you can sort it in either language with a more sophisticated sort function that includes a "swap function" parameter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-13 12:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <09b274a4-73a5-4f6d-bf8c-8c606cb6be17@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #149053 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 13 stycznia 2020 21:48:24 UTC+1 użytkownik David Brown napisał: > > And the whole point of this branch was that anything you can do in C, > you can do in C++. If you have a type in C that can be sorted by qsort, > then it can be sorted by qsort in C++. > that whole point is your trolling, yet you troll seriously which is double worse its like take C compiler say it sompiles new language E which is identical as C then troll everynone that anythink you can do in c you can also do in E so E is really great language comparable to c and better as you added also some shit to it
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-13 13:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1f9d4b4b-9c3a-4ff9-a0c6-1bbc50023d08@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #149054 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 13 stycznia 2020 21:54:49 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał: > W dniu poniedziałek, 13 stycznia 2020 21:48:24 UTC+1 użytkownik David Brown napisał: > > > > And the whole point of this branch was that anything you can do in C, > > you can do in C++. If you have a type in C that can be sorted by qsort, > > then it can be sorted by qsort in C++. > > > > that whole point is your trolling, yet you troll seriously which is double worse > > its like take C compiler say it sompiles new language E which is identical as C then troll everynone that anythink you can do in c you can also do in E so E is really great language comparable to c and better as you added also some shit to it btw it rises some legal questions as for example i would not be happy if someone would take my hipermodular c added some shit to it and name it great language of (hipermodular c)++ though also i would not like to be not able to extend c (as if it would be licensed/patented) c++ made terrible thing by taking most pure language and adding sticky shit to it, i wonder if this was not a precedence and languages before was born by taking something and glueing something other (worse) to it
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-14 02:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87bb673b-73b6-4c6f-94ce-45c048bd4420@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #149053 |
On Monday, 13 January 2020 20:48:24 UTC, David Brown wrote: > On 13/01/2020 18:35, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > On Monday, 13 January 2020 14:19:59 UTC, David Brown wrote: > >> > >> So assuming a suitable compiler exists for your target, if you can do > >> something in C you can do the same thing in C++. It is not going to be > >> idiomatic C++, but it will work. > >> > > That's the point. > > It certainly is not the point you tried to make earlier - it is, in > fact, the opposite. > > > We can write a "general purpose sort" in C using only > > portable C code with no dependencies. > > Yes. And the same code will work in C++ - (almost) anything you can do > in C, you can do equally well in C++ because you can use exactly the > same code. > > > However if we move to C++, it is > > no longer a general purpose sort. > > Of course it is a general purpose sort. That applies whether you mean > taking the general purpose C sort and compiling it as C++, or if you > mean writing a C++ template-style sort. > A general purpose sort sorts "pretty much anything". In C, that means arrays of structures. The sort won't work for linked lists, or for structures which contain pointers to internals, but those are comparatively rare. Basically, if we want to sort something in C, we can use qsort(). Now we move to C++. Obvioulsy if we simply make a few trivial changes to the code to make it compatible with C++, then all our structs are what C++ calls "PODs", or "plain old data types". But that's not idiomatic C++. If we are using C++< it is likely that the code will acumulate classes and std::vectors. Ability to use such facilities is likely the reason we moved to C++. So qsort is no longer a general purose sort. It won't sort "almost anything", but only the legacy C arrays. > > > The C++ general purpose sort has to > > be written with templates. > > Nonsense. > You could pass in the swap function, fair enough. That would have to take void pointers and cast them back to the appropriate types, so it would have to specially written. But it would work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-14 02:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <999c2072-7c98-47a0-91a1-b57a4b855148@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #149069 |
W dniu wtorek, 14 stycznia 2020 11:30:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Malcolm McLean napisał: > On Monday, 13 January 2020 20:48:24 UTC, David Brown wrote: > > On 13/01/2020 18:35, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > On Monday, 13 January 2020 14:19:59 UTC, David Brown wrote: > > >> > > >> So assuming a suitable compiler exists for your target, if you can do > > >> something in C you can do the same thing in C++. It is not going to be > > >> idiomatic C++, but it will work. > > >> > > > That's the point. > > > > It certainly is not the point you tried to make earlier - it is, in > > fact, the opposite. > > > > > We can write a "general purpose sort" in C using only > > > portable C code with no dependencies. > > > > Yes. And the same code will work in C++ - (almost) anything you can do > > in C, you can do equally well in C++ because you can use exactly the > > same code. > > > > > However if we move to C++, it is > > > no longer a general purpose sort. > > > > Of course it is a general purpose sort. That applies whether you mean > > taking the general purpose C sort and compiling it as C++, or if you > > mean writing a C++ template-style sort. > > > A general purpose sort sorts "pretty much anything". In C, that means arrays > of structures. The sort won't work for linked lists, or for structures which > contain pointers to internals, but those are comparatively rare. Basically, > if we want to sort something in C, we can use qsort(). > Now we move to C++. Obvioulsy if we simply make a few trivial changes to > the code to make it compatible with C++, then all our structs are what > C++ calls "PODs", or "plain old data types". But that's not idiomatic C++. > If we are using C++< it is likely that the code will acumulate classes > and std::vectors. Ability to use such facilities is likely the reason we > moved to C++. So qsort is no longer a general purose sort. It won't sort > "almost anything", but only the legacy C arrays. > > > > > The C++ general purpose sort has to > > > be written with templates. > > > > Nonsense. > > > You could pass in the swap function, fair enough. That would have to take > void pointers and cast them back to the appropriate types, so it would > have to specially written. But it would work. in my opinion for normal coder c++ stl shit is out becouse of 'architectural' stupidity of that tthing...qsort is out becouse of being slow..simply take a pice of code i recently posted (mixed quickinsertsort) and go
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-14 02:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eed1e7c0-ac4a-4f4e-867f-7570c4603cc9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #149070 |
W dniu wtorek, 14 stycznia 2020 11:40:58 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał: > W dniu wtorek, 14 stycznia 2020 11:30:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Malcolm McLean napisał: > > On Monday, 13 January 2020 20:48:24 UTC, David Brown wrote: > > > On 13/01/2020 18:35, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > > On Monday, 13 January 2020 14:19:59 UTC, David Brown wrote: > > > >> > > > >> So assuming a suitable compiler exists for your target, if you can do > > > >> something in C you can do the same thing in C++. It is not going to be > > > >> idiomatic C++, but it will work. > > > >> > > > > That's the point. > > > > > > It certainly is not the point you tried to make earlier - it is, in > > > fact, the opposite. > > > > > > > We can write a "general purpose sort" in C using only > > > > portable C code with no dependencies. > > > > > > Yes. And the same code will work in C++ - (almost) anything you can do > > > in C, you can do equally well in C++ because you can use exactly the > > > same code. > > > > > > > However if we move to C++, it is > > > > no longer a general purpose sort. > > > > > > Of course it is a general purpose sort. That applies whether you mean > > > taking the general purpose C sort and compiling it as C++, or if you > > > mean writing a C++ template-style sort. > > > > > A general purpose sort sorts "pretty much anything". In C, that means arrays > > of structures. The sort won't work for linked lists, or for structures which > > contain pointers to internals, but those are comparatively rare. Basically, > > if we want to sort something in C, we can use qsort(). > > Now we move to C++. Obvioulsy if we simply make a few trivial changes to > > the code to make it compatible with C++, then all our structs are what > > C++ calls "PODs", or "plain old data types". But that's not idiomatic C++. > > If we are using C++< it is likely that the code will acumulate classes > > and std::vectors. Ability to use such facilities is likely the reason we > > moved to C++. So qsort is no longer a general purose sort. It won't sort > > "almost anything", but only the legacy C arrays. > > > > > > > The C++ general purpose sort has to > > > > be written with templates. > > > > > > Nonsense. > > > > > You could pass in the swap function, fair enough. That would have to take > > void pointers and cast them back to the appropriate types, so it would > > have to specially written. But it would work. > > in my opinion for normal coder c++ stl shit is out becouse of 'architectural' stupidity of that tthing...qsort is out becouse of being slow..simply take a pice of code i recently posted (mixed quickinsertsort) and go qsort is realy slow in my test it take 252 ms to sort 1e6 ints when this mixed quickinsertsort take 111 ms same as c++ std:sort (maybe 1 ms worse hard to see as it somewhat oscilates from run to run even on the identical input) i probably could beat this result (and thus std:sort) spending some hours on finding some improvements
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-14 03:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2f6177dd-7a62-46e4-b3de-8abef3e7b6d5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #149071 |
W dniu wtorek, 14 stycznia 2020 11:47:20 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał: > W dniu wtorek, 14 stycznia 2020 11:40:58 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał: > > W dniu wtorek, 14 stycznia 2020 11:30:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Malcolm McLean napisał: > > > On Monday, 13 January 2020 20:48:24 UTC, David Brown wrote: > > > > On 13/01/2020 18:35, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > > > On Monday, 13 January 2020 14:19:59 UTC, David Brown wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> So assuming a suitable compiler exists for your target, if you can do > > > > >> something in C you can do the same thing in C++. It is not going to be > > > > >> idiomatic C++, but it will work. > > > > >> > > > > > That's the point. > > > > > > > > It certainly is not the point you tried to make earlier - it is, in > > > > fact, the opposite. > > > > > > > > > We can write a "general purpose sort" in C using only > > > > > portable C code with no dependencies. > > > > > > > > Yes. And the same code will work in C++ - (almost) anything you can do > > > > in C, you can do equally well in C++ because you can use exactly the > > > > same code. > > > > > > > > > However if we move to C++, it is > > > > > no longer a general purpose sort. > > > > > > > > Of course it is a general purpose sort. That applies whether you mean > > > > taking the general purpose C sort and compiling it as C++, or if you > > > > mean writing a C++ template-style sort. > > > > > > > A general purpose sort sorts "pretty much anything". In C, that means arrays > > > of structures. The sort won't work for linked lists, or for structures which > > > contain pointers to internals, but those are comparatively rare. Basically, > > > if we want to sort something in C, we can use qsort(). > > > Now we move to C++. Obvioulsy if we simply make a few trivial changes to > > > the code to make it compatible with C++, then all our structs are what > > > C++ calls "PODs", or "plain old data types". But that's not idiomatic C++. > > > If we are using C++< it is likely that the code will acumulate classes > > > and std::vectors. Ability to use such facilities is likely the reason we > > > moved to C++. So qsort is no longer a general purose sort. It won't sort > > > "almost anything", but only the legacy C arrays. > > > > > > > > > The C++ general purpose sort has to > > > > > be written with templates. > > > > > > > > Nonsense. > > > > > > > You could pass in the swap function, fair enough. That would have to take > > > void pointers and cast them back to the appropriate types, so it would > > > have to specially written. But it would work. > > > > in my opinion for normal coder c++ stl shit is out becouse of 'architectural' stupidity of that tthing...qsort is out becouse of being slow..simply take a pice of code i recently posted (mixed quickinsertsort) and go > > qsort is realy slow in my test it take 252 ms to sort 1e6 ints when this mixed quickinsertsort take 111 ms same as c++ std:sort (maybe 1 ms worse hard to see as it somewhat oscilates from run to run even on the identical input) > > i probably could beat this result (and thus std:sort) spending some hours on finding some improvements yet see info on sorting in other thread, and generally see, i repeat what i measured (i measure sorting 1e6 integers (positive from 0 to (2^24)-1 ) qsort - 252 ms my quicksort code snippet (this nice one) - 140 ms my quicksort + insert sort code snippet (provided) - 111.5 ms std:sort of c++ - 111 ms radix sort taken from some guy on stack - 27.5 ms for signed integers 26 ms for unsigned (you may delete 3.5 ms from all those values as its overhead of my time plots drawing system) (more details:it was measured on 32 bin xp old core 2 ps compiled on gcc 2015 or 2016 only with -O2 flag as to optimisations) (i use this older for purpose)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-14 04:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4e9c7dd0-c4f6-45ad-b3bc-d98ca897b3e2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #149075 |
W dniu wtorek, 14 stycznia 2020 12:52:14 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał: > W dniu wtorek, 14 stycznia 2020 11:47:20 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał: > > W dniu wtorek, 14 stycznia 2020 11:40:58 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał: > > > W dniu wtorek, 14 stycznia 2020 11:30:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Malcolm McLean napisał: > > > > On Monday, 13 January 2020 20:48:24 UTC, David Brown wrote: > > > > > On 13/01/2020 18:35, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, 13 January 2020 14:19:59 UTC, David Brown wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> So assuming a suitable compiler exists for your target, if you can do > > > > > >> something in C you can do the same thing in C++. It is not going to be > > > > > >> idiomatic C++, but it will work. > > > > > >> > > > > > > That's the point. > > > > > > > > > > It certainly is not the point you tried to make earlier - it is, in > > > > > fact, the opposite. > > > > > > > > > > > We can write a "general purpose sort" in C using only > > > > > > portable C code with no dependencies. > > > > > > > > > > Yes. And the same code will work in C++ - (almost) anything you can do > > > > > in C, you can do equally well in C++ because you can use exactly the > > > > > same code. > > > > > > > > > > > However if we move to C++, it is > > > > > > no longer a general purpose sort. > > > > > > > > > > Of course it is a general purpose sort. That applies whether you mean > > > > > taking the general purpose C sort and compiling it as C++, or if you > > > > > mean writing a C++ template-style sort. > > > > > > > > > A general purpose sort sorts "pretty much anything". In C, that means arrays > > > > of structures. The sort won't work for linked lists, or for structures which > > > > contain pointers to internals, but those are comparatively rare. Basically, > > > > if we want to sort something in C, we can use qsort(). > > > > Now we move to C++. Obvioulsy if we simply make a few trivial changes to > > > > the code to make it compatible with C++, then all our structs are what > > > > C++ calls "PODs", or "plain old data types". But that's not idiomatic C++. > > > > If we are using C++< it is likely that the code will acumulate classes > > > > and std::vectors. Ability to use such facilities is likely the reason we > > > > moved to C++. So qsort is no longer a general purose sort. It won't sort > > > > "almost anything", but only the legacy C arrays. > > > > > > > > > > > The C++ general purpose sort has to > > > > > > be written with templates. > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense. > > > > > > > > > You could pass in the swap function, fair enough. That would have to take > > > > void pointers and cast them back to the appropriate types, so it would > > > > have to specially written. But it would work. > > > > > > in my opinion for normal coder c++ stl shit is out becouse of 'architectural' stupidity of that tthing...qsort is out becouse of being slow..simply take a pice of code i recently posted (mixed quickinsertsort) and go > > > > qsort is realy slow in my test it take 252 ms to sort 1e6 ints when this mixed quickinsertsort take 111 ms same as c++ std:sort (maybe 1 ms worse hard to see as it somewhat oscilates from run to run even on the identical input) > > > > i probably could beat this result (and thus std:sort) spending some hours on finding some improvements > > yet see info on sorting in other thread, and generally see, i repeat what i measured (i measure sorting 1e6 integers (positive from 0 to (2^24)-1 ) > > qsort - 252 ms > > my quicksort code snippet (this nice one) - 140 ms > > my quicksort + insert sort code snippet (provided) - 111.5 ms > > std:sort of c++ - 111 ms > > radix sort taken from some guy on stack - 27.5 ms for signed integers 26 ms for unsigned > > (you may delete 3.5 ms from all those values as its overhead of my time plots drawing system) > (more details:it was measured on 32 bin xp old core 2 ps compiled on gcc 2015 or 2016 only with -O2 flag as to optimisations) (i use this older for purpose) what does it mean in a contex of bulshitting bonita threads: it only means what you got in libraries or what yopu got not (or what you can write byself or what you cant), library my beat library but its a fight against libraries not languages not any way making c++ superior, nor making it less bloated, this is stup[id trash talk of lies (and c++ is inferior by stupidity of its design )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-14 14:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qvkf69$ltr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #149069 |
On 14/01/2020 11:30, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Monday, 13 January 2020 20:48:24 UTC, David Brown wrote: >> On 13/01/2020 18:35, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On Monday, 13 January 2020 14:19:59 UTC, David Brown wrote: >>>> >>>> So assuming a suitable compiler exists for your target, if you can do >>>> something in C you can do the same thing in C++. It is not going to be >>>> idiomatic C++, but it will work. >>>> >>> That's the point. >> >> It certainly is not the point you tried to make earlier - it is, in >> fact, the opposite. >> >>> We can write a "general purpose sort" in C using only >>> portable C code with no dependencies. >> >> Yes. And the same code will work in C++ - (almost) anything you can do >> in C, you can do equally well in C++ because you can use exactly the >> same code. >> >>> However if we move to C++, it is >>> no longer a general purpose sort. >> >> Of course it is a general purpose sort. That applies whether you mean >> taking the general purpose C sort and compiling it as C++, or if you >> mean writing a C++ template-style sort. >> > A general purpose sort sorts "pretty much anything". In C, that means arrays > of structures. The sort won't work for linked lists, or for structures which > contain pointers to internals, but those are comparatively rare. Basically, > if we want to sort something in C, we can use qsort(). > Now we move to C++. Obvioulsy if we simply make a few trivial changes to > the code to make it compatible with C++, then all our structs are what > C++ calls "PODs", or "plain old data types". But that's not idiomatic C++. Look back at my posts. Re-stating what I wrote does not make your original post correct, but it does show that you are beginning to understand the point. > If we are using C++< it is likely that the code will acumulate classes > and std::vectors. Ability to use such facilities is likely the reason we > moved to C++. So qsort is no longer a general purose sort. It won't sort > "almost anything", but only the legacy C arrays. >> >>> The C++ general purpose sort has to >>> be written with templates. >> >> Nonsense. >> > You could pass in the swap function, fair enough. That would have to take > void pointers and cast them back to the appropriate types, so it would > have to specially written. But it would work. > Yes, I know it would work. I also know it would not be idiomatic C++ (though it could be good in C).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-12 02:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <82f6ef6e-7528-4833-b9bc-77cfdfb6838b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #148952 |
W dniu niedziela, 12 stycznia 2020 11:03:06 UTC+1 użytkownik Bonita Montero napisał: > >> In C you have to write a lot of boilerplate-code because the language > >> provides almost nothing. Look at the C++-containers; C provides not > >> even the simplest form of it, a string, as a natve type. > > > are you noob enough to not know libraries provide things? (you simply -l"libname") > > There's no library that helps handling strings like a native type > in C because C doesn't provide the base facilties like templates > and operator-overloading. > And look at even more advanced STL-classes like unordered_map. > You simply say std::unordered_map<key, value> and thereby specialize > unordered_map for certain types. Having the same performance through > specialization (boilerplate-code is magnitudes more common) in C is > at least a whole day's work. proove that there is something that dont allows you to use someting like void* a = CreateUnorderedMap(); UnorderedMapAddKey(a, "allala"); UnorderedMapAddValue(a, "ala"); //get your own style of names c gives you simple interface, it has some lacks but what it has to boilerplate ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-12 12:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qvf16c$1df$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #148955 |
> void* a = CreateUnorderedMap(); > UnorderedMapAddKey(a, "allala"); > UnorderedMapAddValue(a, "ala"); > //get your own style of names And where do I get this function CreateUnorderedMap? In C++ it's in the STL and it can be specialized to certain types with just a line of code. In C I would have to do that on my own which takes at least a whole day. No one specializes algorithms for every datatype in C. Because of that you have algorithms like qsort, which are rather slow because of the shallow copying of the objects and the invocation of the comparison-function. There are other libraries which works similar in C like libavl. But they're not as fast as the STL's classes and algorithms, not typesafe and don't care about resource errors (in C++ you can f.e. throw an exception from a std::sort lamda). You have almost no real programming experience.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-12 04:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <75cbed04-f42e-4e33-8da1-2c666af32b08@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #148961 |
W dniu niedziela, 12 stycznia 2020 12:50:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Bonita Montero napisał: > > void* a = CreateUnorderedMap(); > > UnorderedMapAddKey(a, "allala"); > > UnorderedMapAddValue(a, "ala"); > > //get your own style of names > > And where do I get this function CreateUnorderedMap? > In C++ it's in the STL and it can be specialized to certain types > with just a line of code. In C I would have to do that on my own > which takes at least a whole day. > No one specializes algorithms for every datatype in C. Because of > that you have algorithms like qsort, which are rather slow because > of the shallow copying of the objects and the invocation of the > comparison-function. There are other libraries which works similar > in C like libavl. But they're not as fast as the STL's classes and > algorithms, not typesafe and don't care about resource errors (in > C++ you can f.e. throw an exception from a std::sort lamda). > > You have almost no real programming experience. where? in library containing it..google one or write/buy etc.. i think i would need to stop this trolling stream..call me a noob in your overwhelmin stupidity i dont care simply talks with persons who lacks basic skill in thinking is too low mental lewel than expected
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-12 14:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tZFSF.107571$4c1.3387@fx31.am4> |
| In reply to | #148952 |
On 12/01/2020 10:02, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> In C you have to write a lot of boilerplate-code because the language >>> provides almost nothing. Look at the C++-containers; C provides not >>> even the simplest form of it, a string, as a natve type. > >> are you noob enough to not know libraries provide things? (you simply >> -l"libname") > > There's no library that helps handling strings like a native type > in C because C doesn't provide the base facilties like templates > and operator-overloading. > And look at even more advanced STL-classes like unordered_map. > You simply say std::unordered_map<key, value> and thereby specialize > unordered_map for certain types. Having the same performance through > specialization (boilerplate-code is magnitudes more common) in C is > at least a whole day's work. > What some people don't like about C++ is not those convenient sets of types, but how they are implemented. Ie, not built-in but bolted on via language building features, but which require complex facilties in the language to make possible, and require libraries to be presented as actual source implementations, rather than just the interface. They also require considerable skill to put together properly. Or to to figure out how they will interact with the many other arcane features. Or to decipher error messages which will be in terms of the implementation code (as the compiler can't distinguish between user-code, and implementation code). The syntax is pretty poor too. Now, I'm in the process of building a new compiler that will hopefully have types like C++'s unordered_map vector actually built-in and supported internally. It will do this without templates, classes or generics. They will look like this dict[K]V map # K=key type, V=value type array[]T A # flex array of T and will not need any special headers or imports to make use of. Now, this is not C, but if I can do this, then someone could have done the same with C. Then they would have had this stuff conveniently built-in, and it would have been a better language for using those types than the ultra-heavyweight C++.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-12 16:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qvfd8g$ase$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #148979 |
> Now, I'm in the process of building a new compiler that will hopefully > have types like C++'s unordered_map vector actually built-in and > supported internally. ... You're an idiot and you won't design a new language or write a compiler.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-12 08:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <61b79fa0-2472-4089-b33e-3f50638a3252@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #148982 |
W dniu niedziela, 12 stycznia 2020 16:16:40 UTC+1 użytkownik Bonita Montero napisał: > > Now, I'm in the process of building a new compiler that will hopefully > > have types like C++'s unordered_map vector actually built-in and > > supported internally. ... > > You're an idiot and you won't design a new language or write a compiler. i already did do maybe stop playing idiot..oh well facts dont stop that kind of people
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-12 17:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qvfib5$dj7$3@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #148984 |
>> You're an idiot and you won't design a new language or write a compiler. > i already did do maybe stop playing idiot..oh well facts dont stop that kind of people You show daily in this NG that you lack essential knowledge. Unlikely that you design a language or write a compiler.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-12 17:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gUISF.17407$cW.12297@fx16.am4> |
| In reply to | #148982 |
On 12/01/2020 15:16, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Now, I'm in the process of building a new compiler that will hopefully >> have types like C++'s unordered_map vector actually built-in and >> supported internally. ... > > You're an idiot and you won't design a new language or write a compiler. Huh? I'm done plenty of both for 4 decades.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-12 18:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qvflrt$km3$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #149004 |
>> You're an idiot and you won't design a new language or write a compiler. > Huh? I'm done plenty of both for 4 decades. Show me your compiler.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-12 18:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <wcJSF.130107$j92.120500@fx14.am4> |
| In reply to | #149004 |
On 12/01/2020 17:42, Bart wrote: > On 12/01/2020 15:16, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Now, I'm in the process of building a new compiler that will >>> hopefully have types like C++'s unordered_map vector actually >>> built-in and supported internally. ... >> >> You're an idiot and you won't design a new language or write a compiler. > > Huh? I'm done plenty of both for 4 decades. You don't believe me? Have a look through my clc posts, where I have given plenty of links in the past (although few are now active). I have three current compilers (for C; for my current static language; and for my dynamic language). I've dropped the C target again so they are only available as binaries for Windows64. Which one do you want to try? I can upload it, but it will only work on Windows. Meanwhile here's a set of my compiler tests for C and other languages: https://github.com/sal55/langs/blob/master/compilertest.txt My products on that list are called 'bcc', 'MM' and 'QQ' (mine are among the fastest). Old sources for those three (plus an assembler/linker) are here: https://github.com/sal55/langs/tree/master/sources
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-01-12 19:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qvfomh$df6$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #149006 |
> You don't believe me? Have a look through my clc posts, where I have > given plenty of links in the past (although few are now active). Give links to your C-compiler. I've found only a C subset fcompiler. Or simply drop anything. Compilers are written by larger teams that have decades of know how. You can't beat them (not even with ridicoulous benchmarks).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web