Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #401667 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-09-06 15:45 +0200 |
| Last post | 2026-10-05 04:32 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 496 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-06 15:45 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-06 15:52 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-06 16:52 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-06 21:41 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 09:37 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-07 11:35 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-07 13:15 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-07 13:55 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 15:24 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-07 15:33 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-07 16:34 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-08 00:50 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-08 00:35 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-07 17:43 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 16:52 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-09 15:24 +0800
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 10:18 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-09 20:16 +0800
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 14:31 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 14:37 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-09 21:37 +0800
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 09:38 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-18 17:42 +0800
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-08 03:11 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-08 16:40 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-08 20:08 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 09:35 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 10:18 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 12:32 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 14:30 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 15:09 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 16:58 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 18:34 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-09 18:37 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 20:12 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 22:11 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-09 21:15 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 23:37 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 21:39 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 21:39 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-10 09:07 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 14:41 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 23:31 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-09 15:10 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-08 09:25 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 09:59 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 10:35 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 11:35 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 14:43 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 14:08 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 14:14 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-11 09:16 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-09-14 19:14 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-09-18 08:29 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 02:45 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 15:07 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-09 07:14 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 15:31 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-09 07:41 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 15:58 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-09 08:05 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 16:13 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 16:29 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Johann \"Myrkraverk\" Oskarsson" <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-18 10:23 +0800
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 16:10 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 16:19 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 17:02 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 15:11 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-09 08:25 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 15:53 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 17:42 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 17:53 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 18:03 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 18:19 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 18:49 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 19:16 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-09 15:48 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 18:38 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-10 09:11 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-09 15:04 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 17:12 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Johann \"Myrkraverk\" Oskarsson" <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-09 23:59 +0800
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 15:30 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-10 06:50 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 15:13 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-09-09 15:16 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 15:43 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-10 07:16 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-08 00:02 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-08 12:47 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-09 01:59 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 10:26 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 19:12 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-09-09 21:01 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 21:45 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 21:18 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-10 09:32 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 23:26 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 23:30 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-10 08:45 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-10 13:09 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 14:37 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 15:11 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 15:16 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 15:28 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-10 14:33 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 15:51 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 16:03 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-10 15:27 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 16:45 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 16:59 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-10 16:57 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 18:18 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 01:04 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 16:47 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 16:54 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 17:06 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 17:15 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-10 18:10 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 18:21 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-10 18:45 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 18:56 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 19:01 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 19:20 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 20:19 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 20:25 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 19:17 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-11 09:21 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 12:46 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 14:13 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-09-11 13:41 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 14:55 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 15:01 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 15:04 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 15:08 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 15:13 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 15:17 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 21:02 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 21:59 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 16:41 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-10 09:48 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-11 00:06 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-10 23:48 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 15:52 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-11 00:48 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 17:11 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-12 08:01 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 08:20 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 09:09 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 12:35 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 12:40 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-12 11:55 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 14:37 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 14:49 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 15:00 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-12 14:24 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 15:44 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 15:53 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 16:05 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 16:16 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 17:20 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-12 17:08 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-12 10:53 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 19:23 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-12 18:58 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 20:35 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 20:46 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 20:49 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-12 22:16 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-12 15:40 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 10:15 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 10:27 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 10:39 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-13 10:30 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 11:47 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 11:53 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-13 11:26 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 12:37 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 12:47 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 12:55 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 13:11 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-13 05:29 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 13:43 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 14:00 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2026-09-13 10:53 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-13 13:46 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 15:21 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-13 15:31 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 16:34 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 16:58 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-13 18:01 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 21:14 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 17:17 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 17:23 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 17:27 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 17:06 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-14 15:01 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-14 18:11 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-09-14 20:21 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-14 22:54 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-14 23:56 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-15 09:07 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-15 09:41 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-15 10:22 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-15 11:51 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-15 12:53 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-18 09:10 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-18 11:37 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-19 09:03 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-19 13:01 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-05 01:57 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-14 18:54 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-14 22:55 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-14 21:03 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-15 00:33 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-13 10:50 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 12:32 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 20:15 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 19:34 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 19:39 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 15:23 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-12 07:45 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-11 00:37 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-13 18:55 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-14 01:44 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-14 07:41 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-14 14:01 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-14 14:09 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-15 02:42 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-14 23:41 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-15 01:48 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-15 07:39 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-15 11:28 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-15 14:54 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-15 21:56 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-15 21:34 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-16 00:36 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-16 02:21 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-16 09:08 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-16 11:21 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-16 13:47 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-16 15:20 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-16 17:53 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-17 00:36 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-16 16:59 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-17 01:49 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-16 19:43 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-09-17 09:24 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-17 11:29 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 15:06 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-18 02:04 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 18:19 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-18 11:27 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-18 11:21 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-18 13:17 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-18 15:44 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-19 09:16 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-09-18 12:55 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-18 17:53 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-18 15:47 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-19 21:22 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-20 15:58 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-21 21:06 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-22 15:04 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-22 21:07 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-18 15:41 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 11:34 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-17 12:52 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-17 13:15 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-17 15:16 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-17 15:25 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-17 17:05 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-17 16:46 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-17 20:22 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-17 20:19 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-09-17 21:55 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-17 23:47 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-09-17 21:31 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-17 20:54 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 15:44 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-17 23:48 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-09-18 00:04 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-18 01:34 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 17:50 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-18 17:45 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-18 15:28 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-18 18:34 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-18 18:08 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 11:26 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-09-18 20:39 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-19 13:10 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-19 13:20 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-19 17:30 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-19 09:38 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-19 21:00 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-20 10:17 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-20 11:29 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-20 12:52 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-06 01:06 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-09-20 15:58 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-20 15:55 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-21 20:41 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-22 01:53 +0800
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-22 11:28 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-22 11:34 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-22 15:00 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2026-09-22 14:22 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2026-09-22 15:04 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-22 16:38 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-30 02:28 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-06 01:29 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-19 22:01 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-18 20:28 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-09-18 05:42 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-18 08:08 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-18 10:23 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-18 15:24 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-18 16:31 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 11:29 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-18 20:14 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 12:42 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2026-09-19 13:39 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-19 16:24 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-09-19 00:19 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-19 02:06 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 20:20 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-09-19 03:26 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-19 09:56 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-19 11:08 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-09-19 13:25 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-19 10:45 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-19 15:09 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-19 16:17 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-19 09:45 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-18 13:11 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-18 14:03 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-18 17:24 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 11:06 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-18 20:07 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 12:26 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-18 22:57 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-19 17:27 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-19 20:09 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-20 12:31 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-20 12:42 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-20 15:08 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-20 14:22 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-20 14:54 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-20 23:24 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-21 15:06 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-21 16:36 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-21 17:45 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-21 20:54 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-22 15:02 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-22 21:02 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-20 15:58 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-20 15:19 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-20 23:49 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-20 16:17 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-20 15:49 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-20 15:18 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-20 15:41 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-09-17 21:53 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-17 21:05 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-17 14:38 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-17 17:15 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-17 16:33 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-17 20:26 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 13:26 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 13:25 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-17 12:36 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-17 13:03 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-17 14:51 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-17 14:32 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 15:17 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 15:24 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-18 09:06 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 02:08 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-18 11:01 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 03:05 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-18 11:13 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-16 17:33 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-16 19:19 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-16 18:34 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-16 20:21 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-16 13:16 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-16 15:26 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-16 15:58 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-16 19:13 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-16 18:30 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-16 20:30 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-16 21:16 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-17 02:56 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-30 02:32 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-29 19:58 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-05 02:15 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-29 03:22 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 09:49 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-14 11:27 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 16:03 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 16:15 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-22 23:27 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-23 01:01 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-23 23:38 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-24 02:00 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-24 02:41 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-23 20:23 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-24 11:27 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-24 23:54 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-25 01:23 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-25 03:47 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-25 11:38 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-26 02:49 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-26 11:44 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-26 14:03 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-28 00:05 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-29 00:56 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-29 14:27 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-30 02:02 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-30 11:18 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-09-30 13:37 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-30 17:17 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-09-30 14:39 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-30 22:39 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-01 15:23 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-02 02:38 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-02 09:17 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-25 12:17 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-25 11:31 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-26 02:34 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-24 08:50 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-24 11:31 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-24 11:29 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-25 21:09 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-26 11:59 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-29 04:06 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-29 04:47 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-29 23:49 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-30 12:19 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 10:13 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 10:38 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 11:40 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 12:05 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-09-09 15:23 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 23:07 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 15:52 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 01:00 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Johann \"Myrkraverk\" Oskarsson" <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-18 10:17 +0800
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 09:29 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2026-09-19 13:46 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-25 09:15 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-10 06:16 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 14:38 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 18:35 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 18:36 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-10 10:11 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-11 00:48 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-29 03:18 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-09-18 12:58 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-22 23:21 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 12:47 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 15:20 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-07 09:53 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-07 23:59 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-07 16:04 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 04:06 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-07 20:05 +0800
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 15:32 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 12:59 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 13:09 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-08 14:15 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 14:35 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 14:49 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-08 16:05 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 16:18 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-08 09:45 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-08 20:41 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 12:39 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 15:55 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-08 18:02 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 17:39 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-08 18:47 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 18:19 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-08 19:24 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 19:26 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 03:25 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 09:13 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-09 07:38 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Johann \"Myrkraverk\" Oskarsson" <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-09 22:16 +0800
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 09:02 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Jan van den Broek <balglaas@dds.nl> - 2026-09-09 12:50 +0000
And then we reached C# (was Re: Official list of top C annoyances) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 08:51 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-08 14:54 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 16:10 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-25 14:22 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-05 04:32 +0200
Page 24 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 22 23 [24] 25 Next page →
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 12:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <117pop5$g077$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401686 |
On 9/7/2026 6:33 AM, David Brown wrote:
[...]
> I've lost track of the hypothetical project organisation, and this is
> not really the right place for a tutorial on the details of C++ modules.
> However, I can point out one significant difference between C++
> modules and, say, Python modules - in C++, the concept of "module" is
> independent of the concept of "namespace". That means that the fully
> qualified names used by the importer of a module depends on the
> namespaces used, not the module names. (Of course in a well-organised
> project, there will be clear correlations between module names, file
> names, and namespaces. But they don't have to be one-to-one.)
Actually, I am quite fond of header only. ct_main.cpp is the main driver
in my experimental system.
lol. Here it is. Works fine for my current needs.
https://i.ibb.co/S4Kx54Pk/image.png
__________________________
#include "ct_vector_grid.hpp"
#include "ct_circle_tangent.hpp"
#include "ct_ball_bearing.hpp"
#include "ct_vector_fractal_tips.hpp"
#include "ct_visions.hpp"
#include "ct_vector_accum_test.hpp"
#include "ct_bifurcation_test.hpp"
#include "ct_tile_map_test.hpp"
#include "ct_triangle_test.hpp"
#include "ct_tile_test.hpp"
#include "ct_vector_fractal_test.hpp"
#include "ct_ttr.hpp"
#include "ct_vector_dla_test.hpp"
#include "ct_vector_cluster_test.hpp"
#include "ct_povray_vector_field.hpp"
#include "ct_colorbook.hpp"
#include "ct_vector_field.hpp"
#include "ct_koch_test.hpp"
#include "ct_geometry_plot.hpp"
#include "ct_cairo.hpp"
#include "ct_glm.hpp"
#include "ct_complex.hpp"
#include <iostream>
#include <stdexcept>
#include <string>
#include <cstdlib>
void
ct_main(
char const* filename
) {
ct::plane::plane_2d plane(
ct::plane::axes_2d({ { 0, 0 }, 1.5f }),
1920 / 1,
1080 / 1
// roxy test!
// 512,
// 512
);
ct::plot::cairo::plot_2d plot(plane);
plot.clear({ 0, 0, 0, 1 });
{
ct::vector_grid::test::manifest(plot);
//ct::circle_tangent::test::manifest(plot);
//ct::ball_bearing::test::manifest(plot);
//ct::vector_fractal_tips::test::manifest(plot);
// ct::visions::manifest(plot);
//ct::vector_accum_test::manifest(plot);
//ct::bifurcation_test::manifest(plot);
//ct::tile_map_test::manifest(plot);
//ct::triangle_test::manifest(plot);
//ct::tile_test::manifest(plot);
//ct::vector_fractal_test::manifest(plot);
//ct::ttr::manifest(plot);
//ct::geometry::plot2d::manifest(plot);
// ct::vector_field::manifest(plot);
//ct::colorbook::manifest(plot);
// ct::vector_cluster_test::manifest(plot);
//ct::vector_dla_test::manifest(plot);
//ct::plot::povray::manifest(plot);
//ct::povray::vector_field::manifest(plot);
}
// Unit circle...
plot.circle({ { 0, 0 }, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }, 1);
plot.save(filename);
}
int
main()
{
std::cout << "ct_plot\n";
std::cout << "by: Chris M. Thomasson\n";
std::cout << "_________________________________________________" <<
std::endl;
int status = EXIT_FAILURE;
try
{
ct_main("./ct_output.png");
// I know I know... ;^)
std::system("mspaint ct_output.png");
status = EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
catch (std::runtime_error const& error)
{
std::cerr << error.what();
}
catch (...)
{
std::cerr << "Shit hit the fan... ;^o\n";
}
std::cout << "\n_________________________________________________"
<< std::endl;
return status;
}
__________________________
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-07 15:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117mdn6$39jni$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401678 |
bart pisze: > On 07/09/2026 08:37, fir wrote: >> Janis Papanagnou pisze: >>> On 2026-09-06 17:52, bart wrote: >>>> On 06/09/2026 14:45, fir wrote: >>>>> i think this list should be done maybe >>>>> but i would need to compose it >>>>> >>>>> so this post is not yet a list but to open >>>>> a topic >>>>> >>>>> two most top annoyances at the moment of my >>>>> memory is >>>>> >>>>> I >>>>> >>>>> need of predeclarations (this is that i need >>>>> to declare a symbol up its usage as it cant be seen down >>>>> in code) >>> >>> Are you saying you miss the option to do >>> >>> x = 1.5; >>> /* >>> ... 100 lines of code ... >>> */ >>> float x; >>> >> >> of course this is a common problem to me i got >> something like >> >> int quests_screen; >> >> in one file "screens.c" >> >> and i need an acces to it form another files >> but its not avaliable >> >> eventually c could dissalow that in a file but allow that visibility >> among files - but c dont understand the concept of files >> (which is rather bad) (maybe files just should be considered modules) > > It sounds like you don't understand C. To solve this particular problem, > create a header like this: > > screens.h: > > extern int quests_screen; // shared declaration > > In screens.c: > > #include "screens.h" > int quests_screen; // definition (you can initialise here) > > In all files you want to use this from, add this line: > > #include "screens.h" > > That's how it has to work in C. Of course with proper modules, it's > simpler: > i think you should know i understand c you know when i open my new project it is build form number of c files usually few tens of .c files i also use my own library green.fire.dll i accept adding one header for green_fire.h but it is all my headers i need (i also use windows.h) i dont need any other .h files for mi internal c files - as this project is not divided on mode dll's /objects (object files) so it is clearly SILLY to add h headers for internal purposes imo so this is clearly annoyance (and you seem to know that as you was once discussing i remember that you use the same thing you call as i remember 'unity biulds' those internal headers are silly thing, and those predeclarations is silly thing (no need to discuss it as its clear thing imo)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-07 09:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117lqhi$312k1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401673 |
On 06/09/2026 21:41, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 2026-09-06 17:52, bart wrote: >> On 06/09/2026 14:45, fir wrote: >>> i think this list should be done maybe >>> but i would need to compose it >>> >>> so this post is not yet a list but to open >>> a topic >>> >>> two most top annoyances at the moment of my >>> memory is >>> >>> I >>> >>> need of predeclarations (this is that i need >>> to declare a symbol up its usage as it cant be seen down >>> in code) > > Are you saying you miss the option to do > > x = 1.5; > /* > ... 100 lines of code ... > */ > float x; > > Or do you want to resolve *every* entity name by the linker > (without seeing the declaration at the place where it belongs)? > I can't answer for fir or Bart, of course, but most often when I see people complaining about order of declaration in C, they are referring primarily to file-scope entities, and primarily functions. Basically, they want to be able to order their functions top-down (or without any order) rather than bottom-up, without having to add lots of forward declarations for the functions. When restricted to just that, it is not an entirely unreasonable wish. (Whining about having to jump back and forth in the code between your list of static forward declarations and the function you are writing is, on the other hand, entirely unreasonable. Editors that let you have two windows into the same file, or a split in the one window, have been standard for decades.) In general, declaring identifiers before using them is extremely helpful for static checking to avoid mistakes. And it is also helpful for those that are not great at typing, as their editors can auto-complete identifiers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-07 23:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117nc4f$2236i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401677 |
On 2026-09-07 09:53, David Brown wrote: >> [...] > > I can't answer for fir or Bart, of course, but most often when I see > people complaining about order of declaration in C, they are referring > primarily to file-scope entities, and primarily functions. Basically, > they want to be able to order their functions top-down (or without any > order) rather than bottom-up, without having to add lots of forward > declarations for the functions. [...] Thanks. Your explanation makes sense. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-07 16:04 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <117nccn$3lqkv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401695 |
Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 2026-09-07 09:53, David Brown wrote: >>> [...] >> >> I can't answer for fir or Bart, of course, but most often when I see >> people complaining about order of declaration in C, they are referring >> primarily to file-scope entities, and primarily functions. Basically, >> they want to be able to order their functions top-down (or without any >> order) rather than bottom-up, without having to add lots of forward >> declarations for the functions. [...] > Thanks. Your explanation makes sense. > > Janis > I work mostly in C# where this isn't an issue anymore.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-07 04:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <117m5rh$36f6k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401671 |
On 9/6/2026 8:52 AM, bart wrote: [...] > * Switch languages. Most modern ones allow out of order functions (use a > function before it is defined; no declaration needed), plus have lots of > other features Might as well use Q#: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/quantum/qsharp-overview
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-07 20:05 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <CMxnS.43676$yo3.38773@fx03.ams4> |
| In reply to | #401667 |
On 06/09/2026 9:45 PM, fir wrote:
> i think this list should be done maybe
> but i would need to compose it
>
> so this post is not yet a list but to open
> a topic
>
> two most top annoyances at the moment of my
> memory is
>
> I
>
> need of predeclarations (this is that i need
> to declare a symbol up its usage as it cant be seen down
> in code)
>
> ITS TERRIBLE ANNOYING AND USELESS
>
> II
>
> no adhoc enums (tags) type - i mean
> such i dont need tod efine i just may use it
>
> like
>
> foo('red'); foo('quick');
>
> where in foo
>
> foo(ad_hoc_enum e)
> {
> if(e=='red) ....
> }
>
>
> no definitions just tags
>
> some could say i could use structures
>
> struct red {}
> struct quick {}
>
> its not bad idea but i need tod efine it and that is
> a problem (besides type problems) i need adhoc
>
> this is so usefull and needed its probably
>
> SECOND TERRIBLE ANNOYANCE
>
> III....
>
> other candidates are
>
> 1) that i need to repeat type names foo(floay x, float y, float z)
> instedad of foo(float x,y,x)
>
> 2) that i need end line with ";" (where newline sign should work
>
> 3) that "," operator dont work in many cases
>
> 4) & and | should also be used for logical imo
> (i would need to rethink if t needs some changes in language and when it
> ffalls) now
>
> 5) *p.s works bad
>
>
> and yet few things
>
> (i was writing on all this already but i hjust think official list
> should be written)
Dear fir,
You missed one. This one is my top 0th annoyance in C, but I've learned
to live with it.
6) The * is used for both multiplication and pointer dereferencing.
As we all know, operators should not be overloaded [1], and allowing the
compiler makers to arbitrarily overload operators like this is complete-
ly unacceptable behaviour [sic]. It's a crying shame the I.S.O. commit-
tee hasn't fixed this yet.
When do you think they'll get to it? In the 406x standard?
If there's one thing Java got right, was to not require a special symbol
for pointer dereferencing at all. Of course, that also meant that most
people using Java don't know they're using pointers, and forget to null
them after use, leading to /memory hogs/ now and then.
I have added comp.lang.java to this discussion.
But that's a minor issue, because Java has a great garbage collector.
One that our very own Pythong influencer, Lawrence D'Oliveiro would be
proud of making himself, but it's already there, so he can't make a new
one.
Best wishes, and happy C coding!
[1] I'm looking at you, Lawrence from comp.lang.python!
--
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com
https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-07 15:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117mecm$39rp7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401681 |
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson pisze:
> On 06/09/2026 9:45 PM, fir wrote:
>> i think this list should be done maybe
>> but i would need to compose it
>>
>> so this post is not yet a list but to open
>> a topic
>>
>> two most top annoyances at the moment of my
>> memory is
>>
>> I
>>
>> need of predeclarations (this is that i need
>> to declare a symbol up its usage as it cant be seen down
>> in code)
>>
>> ITS TERRIBLE ANNOYING AND USELESS
>>
>> II
>>
>> no adhoc enums (tags) type - i mean
>> such i dont need tod efine i just may use it
>>
>> like
>>
>> foo('red'); foo('quick');
>>
>> where in foo
>>
>> foo(ad_hoc_enum e)
>> {
>> if(e=='red) ....
>> }
>>
>>
>> no definitions just tags
>>
>> some could say i could use structures
>>
>> struct red {}
>> struct quick {}
>>
>> its not bad idea but i need tod efine it and that is
>> a problem (besides type problems) i need adhoc
>>
>> this is so usefull and needed its probably
>>
>> SECOND TERRIBLE ANNOYANCE
>>
>> III....
>>
>> other candidates are
>>
>> 1) that i need to repeat type names foo(floay x, float y, float z)
>> instedad of foo(float x,y,x)
>>
>> 2) that i need end line with ";" (where newline sign should work
>>
>> 3) that "," operator dont work in many cases
>>
>> 4) & and | should also be used for logical imo
>> (i would need to rethink if t needs some changes in language and when
>> it ffalls) now
>>
>> 5) *p.s works bad
>>
>>
>> and yet few things
>>
>> (i was writing on all this already but i hjust think official list
>> should be written)
>
> Dear fir,
>
> You missed one. This one is my top 0th annoyance in C, but I've learned
> to live with it.
>
> 6) The * is used for both multiplication and pointer dereferencing.
>
back then i wrote a larger thread why say c++ like
(though they are parralel concept so i woulnd we it to c++)
are good thing and c pointers are maybe also good thing but
much less usefull..so partially i could agree
though what i mention here are more "shallow"
annoyances not things that would mean the bigger changes of c in other
language (those other changes are also present but this is kinda other
thing)
thise annoyances i mention probbaly should be changed in c standard (or
at least maybe it could, some of them are backward compatible - liek or
three first i mentioned
it is
1) make symbols be wisible down not only up
2) add ad hoc enums/tags ('something')
3) make ";" optional if there is newline instead
4) maybe extend "," to work in more case to awid many {}
> As we all know, operators should not be overloaded [1], and allowing the
> compiler makers to arbitrarily overload operators like this is complete-
> ly unacceptable behaviour [sic]. It's a crying shame the I.S.O. commit-
> tee hasn't fixed this yet.
>
> When do you think they'll get to it? In the 406x standard?
>
> If there's one thing Java got right, was to not require a special symbol
> for pointer dereferencing at all. Of course, that also meant that most
> people using Java don't know they're using pointers, and forget to null
> them after use, leading to /memory hogs/ now and then.
>
> I have added comp.lang.java to this discussion.
>
> But that's a minor issue, because Java has a great garbage collector.
> One that our very own Pythong influencer, Lawrence D'Oliveiro would be
> proud of making himself, but it's already there, so he can't make a new
> one.
>
>
> Best wishes, and happy C coding!
>
> [1] I'm looking at you, Lawrence from comp.lang.python!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 12:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117oprb$3s30$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401667 |
fir pisze:
> i think this list should be done maybe
> but i would need to compose it
>
> so this post is not yet a list but to open
> a topic
>
> two most top annoyances at the moment of my
> memory is
>
> I
>
> need of predeclarations (this is that i need
> to declare a symbol up its usage as it cant be seen down
> in code)
>
> ITS TERRIBLE ANNOYING AND USELESS
>
> II
>
> no adhoc enums (tags) type - i mean
> such i dont need tod efine i just may use it
>
> like
>
> foo('red'); foo('quick');
>
> where in foo
>
> foo(ad_hoc_enum e)
> {
> if(e=='red) ....
> }
>
>
> no definitions just tags
>
> some could say i could use structures
>
> struct red {}
> struct quick {}
>
> its not bad idea but i need tod efine it and that is
> a problem (besides type problems) i need adhoc
>
> this is so usefull and needed its probably
>
> SECOND TERRIBLE ANNOYANCE
>
> III....
>
> other candidates are
>
> 1) that i need to repeat type names foo(floay x, float y, float z)
> instedad of foo(float x,y,x)
>
> 2) that i need end line with ";" (where newline sign should work
>
> 3) that "," operator dont work in many cases
>
> 4) & and | should also be used for logical imo
> (i would need to rethink if t needs some changes in language and when it
> ffalls) now
>
> 5) *p.s works bad
>
>
> and yet few things
>
6) major annoyance is lack of such functions as sign abs max min (fsign
fabs fmax fmin) and maybe some more (swap) in language standard as operators
really to dis day i not quite memorized how to handle them (i write my
own and assume compiler optimise it but it is not how it should be)
7) LACK OF UNPACKING
next annoyance is lack of something like
int x = 2000;
x.hi; //i mean if x is 32 bit then hi is higher 16 bitshort and lo is
lower short (maybe unsigned sghort)
x.lo;
x.hi.hi; //higher byte of higher short
x.hi.lo;
it would make a lot of codes who need to unpack bytes nicer and possibly
faster
also it could maybe work with floats/doubles
float f = -13.888;
f.sign; //sign
f.exponent; //exponent
f.significand;
f.int; //integral part
f.fract; //fraction part
i.mod; //absolute value
and so on (amy be expanded for builtin complex numbers )
but abstracting from the syntax - becouse its only idea not proposal of
syntax (those .filed names would collide wih structure fields etc)
but lack (if ths so called "unpacking") of it is annoyance
> (i was writing on all this already but i hjust think official list
> should be written)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 13:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117oqcj$4380$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401716 |
fir pisze: > 6) major annoyance is lack of such functions as sign abs max min (fsign > fabs fmax fmin) and maybe some more (swap) in language standard as > operators if such thing as a<b return logical value there should be something (some operator) that returns the loewr one in place (somewhat by analogy loke a+2 vs a+=2 i dont know which operator hovever maybe something like a=<b //for min a>=b //for max though = eems unfortunate so maybe some other signs here maybe a(<)b // for min or something
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 14:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117ou90$2ril$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401717 |
On 08/09/2026 13:09, fir wrote: > fir pisze: >> 6) major annoyance is lack of such functions as sign abs max min >> (fsign fabs fmax fmin) and maybe some more (swap) in language standard >> as operators > > if such thing as a<b return logical value there should be something > (some operator) that returns the loewr one in place (somewhat by > analogy loke a+2 vs a+=2 > > i dont know which operator hovever > > maybe something like > > a=<b //for min > a>=b //for max > > though = eems unfortunate so maybe some other signs here > maybe > > a(<)b // for min > > or something > > gcc had "a <? b" and "a >? b" as minimum and maximum operators, as extensions in C. They were removed in gcc 4 as they were almost never used. Operators are only really appropriate for things that are used often, otherwise they are too unfamiliar to too many people. It would make a lot more sense to have "min" and "max" as functions in the standard library. But naming them could be an issue - far too many existing bodies of code already have macros or functions called "min" and "max". Maybe "stdc_min" and "stdc_max" could be used? But this really is not something to get worked up about. If it bothers you, make a header "fir.h" that has these functions in them and use it in your code. I also recommend you add these to the file : #define ᯒ = #define ꘌ == #define ㄨ * #define 𓅂 * Then instead of boring and easily misunderstood C code like this : c = a * *p == 10; you can now write clear and obvious code : c ᯒ a ㄨ 𓅂b ꘌ 10; (Maybe you can find a different Unicode letter that is closer to the one you wanted - this one has the "hook" on the wrong side.) Of course, you'll need a good Unicode font to see all these.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 14:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117ovej$5vl3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401720 |
David Brown pisze: > On 08/09/2026 13:09, fir wrote: >> fir pisze: >>> 6) major annoyance is lack of such functions as sign abs max min >>> (fsign fabs fmax fmin) and maybe some more (swap) in language >>> standard as operators >> >> if such thing as a<b return logical value there should be something >> (some operator) that returns the loewr one in place (somewhat by >> analogy loke a+2 vs a+=2 >> >> i dont know which operator hovever >> >> maybe something like >> >> a=<b //for min >> a>=b //for max >> >> though = eems unfortunate so maybe some other signs here >> maybe >> >> a(<)b // for min >> >> or something >> >> > > gcc had "a <? b" and "a >? b" as minimum and maximum operators, as those are good like for returning logical values 4<?5 seems should write 1 instead of 4 i dont know - maybe ? should just return logical value? as in - funny - in natural language when you ask a question you cast to true/false ;c if so a<2 could say have no sense/answer (be a hipotesis) and ? would eventually cast it to true/false its kinda interesting idea... for example it combines with idea to add it at end of function name foo? boo //cal foo if true then boo a<b could eventually also yeild to min but maybe as a side efect thsi problems need to be more deeply rethinked yet > extensions in C. They were removed in gcc 4 as they were almost never > used. Operators are only really appropriate for things that are used > often, otherwise they are too unfamiliar to too many people. > > It would make a lot more sense to have "min" and "max" as functions in > the standard library. But naming them could be an issue - far too many > existing bodies of code already have macros or functions called "min" > and "max". Maybe "stdc_min" and "stdc_max" could be used? > > But this really is not something to get worked up about. If it bothers > you, make a header "fir.h" that has these functions in them and use it > in your code. > > I also recommend you add these to the file : > > #define ᯒ = > #define ꘌ == > #define ㄨ * > #define 𓅂 * > > Then instead of boring and easily misunderstood C code like this : > > c = a * *p == 10; > > you can now write clear and obvious code : > > c ᯒ a ㄨ 𓅂b ꘌ 10; > > (Maybe you can find a different Unicode letter that is closer to the one > you wanted - this one has the "hook" on the wrong side.) > > Of course, you'll need a good Unicode font to see all these. > im not using macros
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 14:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117p09j$692r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401722 |
fir pisze: > David Brown pisze: >> On 08/09/2026 13:09, fir wrote: >>> fir pisze: >>>> 6) major annoyance is lack of such functions as sign abs max min >>>> (fsign fabs fmax fmin) and maybe some more (swap) in language >>>> standard as operators >>> >>> if such thing as a<b return logical value there should be something >>> (some operator) that returns the loewr one in place (somewhat by >>> analogy loke a+2 vs a+=2 >>> >>> i dont know which operator hovever >>> >>> maybe something like >>> >>> a=<b //for min >>> a>=b //for max >>> >>> though = eems unfortunate so maybe some other signs here >>> maybe >>> >>> a(<)b // for min >>> >>> or something >>> >>> >> >> gcc had "a <? b" and "a >? b" as minimum and maximum operators, as > > those are good like for returning logical values > 4<?5 seems should write 1 instead of 4 > > i dont know - maybe ? should just return logical value? > > as in - funny - in natural language when you ask a question you cast to > true/false ;c > > if so a<2 could say have no sense/answer (be a hipotesis) and ? would > eventually cast it to true/false > ye i thing it may have a sense to treat a>3 as a hipothesis so it probably man it shouldnt be used as max so maybe min max most natural is arrows up and down c=a↑b d=a↓b it seem possibly anough good (here by = i mean assign but it could also be a hipothesis for equality if there would be this assign sign) > its kinda interesting idea... > > for example it combines with idea to add it at end of function name > > foo? boo //cal foo if true then boo > > a<b could eventually also yeild to min but maybe as a side efect > > thsi problems need to be more deeply rethinked yet > > > > > >> extensions in C. They were removed in gcc 4 as they were almost never >> used. Operators are only really appropriate for things that are used >> often, otherwise they are too unfamiliar to too many people. >> >> It would make a lot more sense to have "min" and "max" as functions in >> the standard library. But naming them could be an issue - far too >> many existing bodies of code already have macros or functions called >> "min" and "max". Maybe "stdc_min" and "stdc_max" could be used? >> >> But this really is not something to get worked up about. If it >> bothers you, make a header "fir.h" that has these functions in them >> and use it in your code. >> >> I also recommend you add these to the file : >> >> #define ᯒ = >> #define ꘌ == >> #define ㄨ * >> #define 𓅂 * >> >> Then instead of boring and easily misunderstood C code like this : >> >> c = a * *p == 10; >> >> you can now write clear and obvious code : >> >> c ᯒ a ㄨ 𓅂b ꘌ 10; >> >> (Maybe you can find a different Unicode letter that is closer to the >> one you wanted - this one has the "hook" on the wrong side.) >> >> Of course, you'll need a good Unicode font to see all these. >> > im not using macros
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 16:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117p4nj$2ril$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401723 |
On 08/09/2026 14:49, fir wrote:
> fir pisze:
>> David Brown pisze:
>>> On 08/09/2026 13:09, fir wrote:
>>>> fir pisze:
>>>>> 6) major annoyance is lack of such functions as sign abs max min
>>>>> (fsign fabs fmax fmin) and maybe some more (swap) in language
>>>>> standard as operators
>>>>
>>>> if such thing as a<b return logical value there should be something
>>>> (some operator) that returns the loewr one in place (somewhat by
>>>> analogy loke a+2 vs a+=2
>>>>
>>>> i dont know which operator hovever
>>>>
>>>> maybe something like
>>>>
>>>> a=<b //for min
>>>> a>=b //for max
>>>>
>>>> though = eems unfortunate so maybe some other signs here
>>>> maybe
>>>>
>>>> a(<)b // for min
>>>>
>>>> or something
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> gcc had "a <? b" and "a >? b" as minimum and maximum operators, as
>>
>> those are good like for returning logical values
>> 4<?5 seems should write 1 instead of 4
>>
>> i dont know - maybe ? should just return logical value?
>>
>> as in - funny - in natural language when you ask a question you cast to
>> true/false ;c
>>
>> if so a<2 could say have no sense/answer (be a hipotesis) and ? would
>> eventually cast it to true/false
>>
>
>
>
> ye i thing it may have a sense to treat a>3 as a hipothesis
> so it probably man it shouldnt be used as max so maybe min max most
> natural is arrows up and down
>
> c=a↑b
> d=a↓b
>
> it seem possibly anough good
>
> (here by = i mean assign but it could also be a hipothesis for equality
> if there would be this assign sign)
>
This will be the last time (and only because I think it is fun, not
because I think it is a good idea!) - you can get what you want, today,
with C++ and macros.
struct Min_helper { };
template<typename T>
struct Min_doer { T v; };
template<typename T>
constexpr auto operator + (T x, Min_helper) { return Min_doer(x); }
template<typename T>
constexpr auto operator + (Min_doer<T> x, T y)
{ return (x.v < y) ? x.v : y; }
constexpr auto min_helper = Min_helper {};
#define ᐱ +min_helper+
int x = 10 ᐱ 20;
double y = 352.56 ᐱ 42.5;
Pick a different Unicode letter than ᐱ if you want. Making "10 ᐱ 3.2"
work correctly is an exercise left for c.l.c++.
Much of what you say you want is entirely possible, today, using a
language that can be used mostly like C. You don't have to design a new
language, or implement your own compiler - you just have to change your
file endings to ".cpp" instead of ".c", define a few classes, functions,
and user-defined literals, and some macros with Unicode letters of your
liking. I feel entirely confident that you will not do this - you'd
rather rant incomprehensibly about how inferior the C standards
committee are compared to your own genius. But for anyone who looks at
APL and thinks "that's too simple", the examples I've given show how to
make your own secret programming language!
>
>
>
>
>> its kinda interesting idea...
>>
>> for example it combines with idea to add it at end of function name
>>
>> foo? boo //cal foo if true then boo
>>
>> a<b could eventually also yeild to min but maybe as a side efect
>>
>> thsi problems need to be more deeply rethinked yet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> extensions in C. They were removed in gcc 4 as they were almost
>>> never used. Operators are only really appropriate for things that
>>> are used often, otherwise they are too unfamiliar to too many people.
>>>
>>> It would make a lot more sense to have "min" and "max" as functions
>>> in the standard library. But naming them could be an issue - far too
>>> many existing bodies of code already have macros or functions called
>>> "min" and "max". Maybe "stdc_min" and "stdc_max" could be used?
>>>
>>> But this really is not something to get worked up about. If it
>>> bothers you, make a header "fir.h" that has these functions in them
>>> and use it in your code.
>>>
>>> I also recommend you add these to the file :
>>>
>>> #define ᯒ =
>>> #define ꘌ ==
>>> #define ㄨ *
>>> #define 𓅂 *
>>>
>>> Then instead of boring and easily misunderstood C code like this :
>>>
>>> c = a * *p == 10;
>>>
>>> you can now write clear and obvious code :
>>>
>>> c ᯒ a ㄨ 𓅂b ꘌ 10;
>>>
>>> (Maybe you can find a different Unicode letter that is closer to the
>>> one you wanted - this one has the "hook" on the wrong side.)
>>>
>>> Of course, you'll need a good Unicode font to see all these.
>>>
>> im not using macros
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 16:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117p5g7$8eve$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401727 |
David Brown pisze:
> On 08/09/2026 14:49, fir wrote:
>> fir pisze:
>>> David Brown pisze:
>>>> On 08/09/2026 13:09, fir wrote:
>>>>> fir pisze:
>>>>>> 6) major annoyance is lack of such functions as sign abs max min
>>>>>> (fsign fabs fmax fmin) and maybe some more (swap) in language
>>>>>> standard as operators
>>>>>
>>>>> if such thing as a<b return logical value there should be something
>>>>> (some operator) that returns the loewr one in place (somewhat by
>>>>> analogy loke a+2 vs a+=2
>>>>>
>>>>> i dont know which operator hovever
>>>>>
>>>>> maybe something like
>>>>>
>>>>> a=<b //for min
>>>>> a>=b //for max
>>>>>
>>>>> though = eems unfortunate so maybe some other signs here
>>>>> maybe
>>>>>
>>>>> a(<)b // for min
>>>>>
>>>>> or something
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> gcc had "a <? b" and "a >? b" as minimum and maximum operators, as
>>>
>>> those are good like for returning logical values
>>> 4<?5 seems should write 1 instead of 4
>>>
>>> i dont know - maybe ? should just return logical value?
>>>
>>> as in - funny - in natural language when you ask a question you cast to
>>> true/false ;c
>>>
>>> if so a<2 could say have no sense/answer (be a hipotesis) and ? would
>>> eventually cast it to true/false
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ye i thing it may have a sense to treat a>3 as a hipothesis
>> so it probably man it shouldnt be used as max so maybe min max most
>> natural is arrows up and down
>>
>> c=a↑b
>> d=a↓b
>>
>> it seem possibly anough good
>>
>> (here by = i mean assign but it could also be a hipothesis for
>> equality if there would be this assign sign)
>>
>
> This will be the last time (and only because I think it is fun, not
> because I think it is a good idea!) - you can get what you want, today,
> with C++ and macros.
>
> struct Min_helper { };
> template<typename T>
> struct Min_doer { T v; };
>
> template<typename T>
> constexpr auto operator + (T x, Min_helper) { return Min_doer(x); }
> template<typename T>
> constexpr auto operator + (Min_doer<T> x, T y)
> { return (x.v < y) ? x.v : y; }
> constexpr auto min_helper = Min_helper {};
> #define ᐱ +min_helper+
>
> int x = 10 ᐱ 20;
> double y = 352.56 ᐱ 42.5;
>
> Pick a different Unicode letter than ᐱ if you want. Making "10 ᐱ 3.2"
> work correctly is an exercise left for c.l.c++.
>
>
> Much of what you say you want is entirely possible, today, using a
> language that can be used mostly like C. You don't have to design a new
> language, or implement your own compiler - you just have to change your
> file endings to ".cpp" instead of ".c", define a few classes, functions,
> and user-defined literals, and some macros with Unicode letters of your
> liking. I feel entirely confident that you will not do this - you'd
> rather rant incomprehensibly about how inferior the C standards
> committee are compared to your own genius. But for anyone who looks at
> APL and thinks "that's too simple", the examples I've given show how to
> make your own secret programming language!
>
i wouldnt use a word genius but the fact is my opinions on language
solutions in area of c are more grounded/solid than usual choices of
people in language area imo
in recent years i do not code (though i already written my own x86
assembler) and halfo of a compiler (of some kind of proto-extended-c)
it compiles things but as now im not code too much i feel no urge to try
finish it (i feel not in good helth for longer focus work sadly0
BUT more to say this kind of work to deduce what its should be in that
improved c is much more hard and time consuming than writing compiler..
many people can write a compiler but make some good decisions here it
seems not so many can ;c
though now i treat it more as a form of entertainment than regular work
(as back then)
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> its kinda interesting idea...
>>>
>>> for example it combines with idea to add it at end of function name
>>>
>>> foo? boo //cal foo if true then boo
>>>
>>> a<b could eventually also yeild to min but maybe as a side efect
>>>
>>> thsi problems need to be more deeply rethinked yet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> extensions in C. They were removed in gcc 4 as they were almost
>>>> never used. Operators are only really appropriate for things that
>>>> are used often, otherwise they are too unfamiliar to too many people.
>>>>
>>>> It would make a lot more sense to have "min" and "max" as functions
>>>> in the standard library. But naming them could be an issue - far
>>>> too many existing bodies of code already have macros or functions
>>>> called "min" and "max". Maybe "stdc_min" and "stdc_max" could be used?
>>>>
>>>> But this really is not something to get worked up about. If it
>>>> bothers you, make a header "fir.h" that has these functions in them
>>>> and use it in your code.
>>>>
>>>> I also recommend you add these to the file :
>>>>
>>>> #define ᯒ =
>>>> #define ꘌ ==
>>>> #define ㄨ *
>>>> #define 𓅂 *
>>>>
>>>> Then instead of boring and easily misunderstood C code like this :
>>>>
>>>> c = a * *p == 10;
>>>>
>>>> you can now write clear and obvious code :
>>>>
>>>> c ᯒ a ㄨ 𓅂b ꘌ 10;
>>>>
>>>> (Maybe you can find a different Unicode letter that is closer to the
>>>> one you wanted - this one has the "hook" on the wrong side.)
>>>>
>>>> Of course, you'll need a good Unicode font to see all these.
>>>>
>>> im not using macros
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 09:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <117pai8$a6ji$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401727 |
David Brown wrote:
> On 08/09/2026 14:49, fir wrote:
>> fir pisze:
>>> David Brown pisze:
>>>> On 08/09/2026 13:09, fir wrote:
>>>>> fir pisze:
>>>>>> 6) major annoyance is lack of such functions as sign abs max min
>>>>>> (fsign fabs fmax fmin) and maybe some more (swap) in language
>>>>>> standard as operators
>>>>>
>>>>> if such thing as a<b return logical value there should be something
>>>>> (some operator) that returns the loewr one in place (somewhat by
>>>>> analogy loke a+2 vs a+=2
>>>>>
>>>>> i dont know which operator hovever
>>>>>
>>>>> maybe something like
>>>>>
>>>>> a=<b //for min
>>>>> a>=b //for max
>>>>>
>>>>> though = eems unfortunate so maybe some other signs here
>>>>> maybe
>>>>>
>>>>> a(<)b // for min
>>>>>
>>>>> or something
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> gcc had "a <? b" and "a >? b" as minimum and maximum operators, as
>>>
>>> those are good like for returning logical values
>>> 4<?5 seems should write 1 instead of 4
>>>
>>> i dont know - maybe ? should just return logical value?
>>>
>>> as in - funny - in natural language when you ask a question you cast to
>>> true/false ;c
>>>
>>> if so a<2 could say have no sense/answer (be a hipotesis) and ? would
>>> eventually cast it to true/false
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ye i thing it may have a sense to treat a>3 as a hipothesis
>> so it probably man it shouldnt be used as max so maybe min max most
>> natural is arrows up and down
>>
>> c=a↑b
>> d=a↓b
>>
>> it seem possibly anough good
>>
>> (here by = i mean assign but it could also be a hipothesis for
>> equality if there would be this assign sign)
>>
>
> This will be the last time (and only because I think it is fun, not
> because I think it is a good idea!) - you can get what you want, today,
> with C++ and macros.
>
> struct Min_helper { };
> template<typename T>
> struct Min_doer { T v; };
>
> template<typename T>
> constexpr auto operator + (T x, Min_helper) { return Min_doer(x); }
> template<typename T>
> constexpr auto operator + (Min_doer<T> x, T y)
> { return (x.v < y) ? x.v : y; }
> constexpr auto min_helper = Min_helper {};
> #define ᐱ +min_helper+
>
> int x = 10 ᐱ 20;
> double y = 352.56 ᐱ 42.5;
>
> Pick a different Unicode letter than ᐱ if you want. Making "10 ᐱ 3.2"
> work correctly is an exercise left for c.l.c++.
>
>
> Much of what you say you want is entirely possible, today, using a
> language that can be used mostly like C. You don't have to design a new
> language, or implement your own compiler - you just have to change your
> file endings to ".cpp" instead of ".c", define a few classes, functions,
> and user-defined literals, and some macros with Unicode letters of your
> liking. I feel entirely confident that you will not do this - you'd
> rather rant incomprehensibly about how inferior the C standards
> committee are compared to your own genius. But for anyone who looks at
> APL and thinks "that's too simple", the examples I've given show how to
> make your own secret programming language!
I don't understand why it's okay to talk about C++ here but not C#? C#
is way better than C++.
The only reason people still use C++ is because of its overall speed
from what I can tell. Or else they haven't been cultured enough to
experience C# yet.
What can be done to improve C#'s overall speed?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 20:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117pksk$e971$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401731 |
On 08/09/2026 17:45, Lane W wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>> On 08/09/2026 14:49, fir wrote:
>>> fir pisze:
>>>> David Brown pisze:
>>>>> On 08/09/2026 13:09, fir wrote:
>>>>>> fir pisze:
>>>>>>> 6) major annoyance is lack of such functions as sign abs max min
>>>>>>> (fsign fabs fmax fmin) and maybe some more (swap) in language
>>>>>>> standard as operators
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if such thing as a<b return logical value there should be something
>>>>>> (some operator) that returns the loewr one in place (somewhat by
>>>>>> analogy loke a+2 vs a+=2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i dont know which operator hovever
>>>>>>
>>>>>> maybe something like
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a=<b //for min
>>>>>> a>=b //for max
>>>>>>
>>>>>> though = eems unfortunate so maybe some other signs here
>>>>>> maybe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a(<)b // for min
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or something
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> gcc had "a <? b" and "a >? b" as minimum and maximum operators, as
>>>>
>>>> those are good like for returning logical values
>>>> 4<?5 seems should write 1 instead of 4
>>>>
>>>> i dont know - maybe ? should just return logical value?
>>>>
>>>> as in - funny - in natural language when you ask a question you cast to
>>>> true/false ;c
>>>>
>>>> if so a<2 could say have no sense/answer (be a hipotesis) and ?
>>>> would eventually cast it to true/false
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ye i thing it may have a sense to treat a>3 as a hipothesis
>>> so it probably man it shouldnt be used as max so maybe min max most
>>> natural is arrows up and down
>>>
>>> c=a↑b
>>> d=a↓b
>>>
>>> it seem possibly anough good
>>>
>>> (here by = i mean assign but it could also be a hipothesis for
>>> equality if there would be this assign sign)
>>>
>>
>> This will be the last time (and only because I think it is fun, not
>> because I think it is a good idea!) - you can get what you want,
>> today, with C++ and macros.
>>
>> struct Min_helper { };
>> template<typename T>
>> struct Min_doer { T v; };
>>
>> template<typename T>
>> constexpr auto operator + (T x, Min_helper) { return Min_doer(x); }
>> template<typename T>
>> constexpr auto operator + (Min_doer<T> x, T y)
>> { return (x.v < y) ? x.v : y; }
>> constexpr auto min_helper = Min_helper {};
>> #define ᐱ +min_helper+
>>
>> int x = 10 ᐱ 20;
>> double y = 352.56 ᐱ 42.5;
>>
>> Pick a different Unicode letter than ᐱ if you want. Making "10 ᐱ 3.2"
>> work correctly is an exercise left for c.l.c++.
>>
>>
>> Much of what you say you want is entirely possible, today, using a
>> language that can be used mostly like C. You don't have to design a
>> new language, or implement your own compiler - you just have to change
>> your file endings to ".cpp" instead of ".c", define a few classes,
>> functions, and user-defined literals, and some macros with Unicode
>> letters of your liking. I feel entirely confident that you will not
>> do this - you'd rather rant incomprehensibly about how inferior the C
>> standards committee are compared to your own genius. But for anyone
>> who looks at APL and thinks "that's too simple", the examples I've
>> given show how to make your own secret programming language!
>
> I don't understand why it's okay to talk about C++ here but not C#? C#
> is way better than C++.
>
It is not really appropriate to talk here about C++ like this either -
but it shows "fir" that what he claims he wants is achievable already,
if he were serious and realistic.
C++ is a language that grew out of C with extensions, and is closely
related. C# is a managed language primarily targeting a specific OS,
which grew out of MS's tantrums when they were not allowed to screw up
Java and make it Windows-only without changing the language name. Now,
it may well be that C# is "better" than Java, for some definition of
"better" - I neither know nor care about either language. It may even
be that C# is "better" than C++ in some ways - again, I don't know and
don't care. But while C++ can be viewed as "C with accumulated extra
features", with C as an approximate subset, C# is a significantly
different language. It might occasionally be relevant in a c.l.c.
thread in a "compare and contrast" discussion, just like Python or
Fortran might be - but no more than that.
> The only reason people still use C++ is because of its overall speed
> from what I can tell. Or else they haven't been cultured enough to
> experience C# yet.
>
> What can be done to improve C#'s overall speed?
>
That may be an interesting question, but it is /definitely/ one for a C#
group, not a C group.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 12:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <117po9e$flg5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401731 |
On 9/8/2026 8:45 AM, Lane W wrote: [...] > What can be done to improve C#'s overall speed? > Get rid of the GC? ;^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 15:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <117q3po$jci1$1@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #401731 |
Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> writes:
[87 lines deleted]
>
> I don't understand why it's okay to talk about C++ here but not C#?
It isn't.
> C# is way better than C++.
>
> The only reason people still use C++ is because of its overall speed
> from what I can tell. Or else they haven't been cultured enough to
> experience C# yet.
Imagine that you've posted in some forum that discusses C#.
I jump in to tell you that C++ is much better than C#, and I can't
understand why anyone would use C#, unless they're not cultured
enough to experience C++. That would be rude of me. The corollary
is left as an exercise.
> What can be done to improve C#'s overall speed?
There are places where you can ask that question and get meaningful
answers. This is not one of those places. If you can't find an
appropriate newsgroup (there doesn't seem to be a comp.lang.csharp),
there are plenty of forums other than Usenet.
Also, when you post a followup, please trim any quoted text that
isn't relevant your followup.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 18:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <117q7m8$ks04$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401739 |
Keith Thompson wrote: > Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> writes: >> The only reason people still use C++ is because of its overall speed >> from what I can tell. Or else they haven't been cultured enough to >> experience C# yet. > > Imagine that you've posted in some forum that discusses C#. > I jump in to tell you that C++ is much better than C#, and I can't > understand why anyone would use C#, unless they're not cultured > enough to experience C++. That would be rude of me. The corollary > is left as an exercise. I suppose I can understand that. Not only would it be rude of you, it would also be false information, or perhaps a misled notion. No one wants to be distributing false information on the Net.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 24 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 22 23 [24] 25 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web