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 | 16 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 25 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 23 24 [25]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 17:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <117q9r8$l8hi$1@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #401741 |
Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> writes:
> 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.
No, you don't understand. It's not about whether the information
is true or false.
You seem to think that it's an objective fact that C# is better
than C++. It's not. It's an opinion. But that's not what I was
talking about.
My complaint has nothing to do with whether C++ or C# is the superior
language. (You'll note that I have not expressed an opinion.)
My complaint is that you are posting in comp.lang.c about things
that are not C.
Repeatedly posting on comp.lang.c that C++ is better than C# is
inappropriate, because it's off topic.
Repeatedly posting on comp.lang.c that C# is better than C++ is
inappropriate, because it's off topic.
If you want to argue that one language is better than another, let
me direct your attention to comp.lang.misc. I might even join in.
I'm aware that you posted in response to a post that discussed C++,
one that I didn't complain about. That post was from a comp.lang.c
regular who makes plenty of relevant posts. A little topic drift
now and then is mostly harmless. I don't recall seeing *any*
relevant posts here from you.
--
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 18:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <117qabe$lmhg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401744 |
Keith Thompson wrote: > I'm aware that you posted in response to a post that discussed C++, > one that I didn't complain about. That post was from a comp.lang.c > regular who makes plenty of relevant posts. A little topic drift > now and then is mostly harmless. I don't recall seeing *any* > relevant posts here from you. > Well aren't you a fancy ancy. I guess no one likes my switch solution to the poster fir's suggestion for unwieldy if then else. Now you are just being finicky. You and Janis are opposed to my switch formulation because it was me, yes me, Lane W. Janis just said he didn't like it. You've gone so far as to say it was not relevant. Talk about conceited posters. Why don't you back up your finicky opinion with some facts. My post of switch avoided the unwieldy braces and if then elses. All you have is your green faces to show against it. That's not objective at all. I deal in facts, not opinions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 18:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <117qc6h$l8hi$2@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #401746 |
Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> I'm aware that you posted in response to a post that discussed C++,
>> one that I didn't complain about. That post was from a comp.lang.c
>> regular who makes plenty of relevant posts. A little topic drift
>> now and then is mostly harmless. I don't recall seeing *any*
>> relevant posts here from you.
>>
> Well aren't you a fancy ancy.
>
> I guess no one likes my switch solution to the poster fir's suggestion
> for unwieldy if then else.
>
> Now you are just being finicky. You and Janis are opposed to my switch
> formulation because it was me, yes me, Lane W. Janis just said he
> didn't like it. You've gone so far as to say it was not relevant.
>
> Talk about conceited posters.
OK, let's talk about conceited posters.
I don't believe I've expressed an opinion on your "switch
formulation", whatever it was. You assume that I'm opposed to it
for personal reasons.
The fact is, I simply don't remember it. I probably glanced at
your post, but it didn't make much of an impression.
(It's conceivable that I did write something about it. If so,
can you cite the relevant post of mine?)
I wrote above that "I don't recall seeing *any* relevant posts
here from you." That was literally true, but I'll concede that
you probably have made some topical posts here.
> Why don't you back up your finicky opinion with some facts. My post of
> switch avoided the unwieldy braces and if then elses. All you have is
> your green faces to show against it. That's not objective at all. I
> deal in facts, not opinions.
If you're talking about your "switch formulation", I have no opinion to
back up.
I'm asking you to (a) refrain from making posts here in comp.lang.c
that have nothing to do with C (including claims that C# is better
than C++), and (b) to trim irrelevant quoted text when you post
a 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 19:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <117qch5$mchs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401748 |
Keith Thompson wrote: > Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> writes: >> Keith Thompson wrote: >>> I'm aware that you posted in response to a post that discussed C++, >>> one that I didn't complain about. That post was from a comp.lang.c >>> regular who makes plenty of relevant posts. A little topic drift >>> now and then is mostly harmless. I don't recall seeing *any* >>> relevant posts here from you. >>> >> Well aren't you a fancy ancy. >> >> I guess no one likes my switch solution to the poster fir's suggestion >> for unwieldy if then else. >> >> Now you are just being finicky. You and Janis are opposed to my switch >> formulation because it was me, yes me, Lane W. Janis just said he >> didn't like it. You've gone so far as to say it was not relevant. >> >> Talk about conceited posters. > > OK, let's talk about conceited posters. > > I don't believe I've expressed an opinion on your "switch > formulation", whatever it was. You assume that I'm opposed to it > for personal reasons. > > The fact is, I simply don't remember it. I probably glanced at > your post, but it didn't make much of an impression. It solved the poster's problem, but Janis didn't like it. He said it made the programmer look in two different places. Even though the two blocks were right next to each other. Why did you say you hadn't seen any relevant posts if you weren't even reading the newsgroup? I'm done defending myself. It's clear you run a little cesspool here where I'm not going to get any back up for doing the right thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 19:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <117qg4f$n3hm$1@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #401749 |
Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> I'm aware that you posted in response to a post that discussed C++,
>>>> one that I didn't complain about. That post was from a comp.lang.c
>>>> regular who makes plenty of relevant posts. A little topic drift
>>>> now and then is mostly harmless. I don't recall seeing *any*
>>>> relevant posts here from you.
>>>>
>>> Well aren't you a fancy ancy.
>>>
>>> I guess no one likes my switch solution to the poster fir's suggestion
>>> for unwieldy if then else.
>>>
>>> Now you are just being finicky. You and Janis are opposed to my switch
>>> formulation because it was me, yes me, Lane W. Janis just said he
>>> didn't like it. You've gone so far as to say it was not relevant.
>>>
>>> Talk about conceited posters.
>> OK, let's talk about conceited posters.
>> I don't believe I've expressed an opinion on your "switch
>> formulation", whatever it was. You assume that I'm opposed to it
>> for personal reasons.
>> The fact is, I simply don't remember it. I probably glanced at
>> your post, but it didn't make much of an impression.
>
> It solved the poster's problem, but Janis didn't like it. He said it
> made the programmer look in two different places. Even though the two
> blocks were right next to each other. Why did you say you hadn't seen
> any relevant posts if you weren't even reading the newsgroup?
I didn't say I hadn't seen any relevant posts. I said I didn't
recall seeing any relevant posts. That was a true statement at
the time, but it was also an error on my part, as I've already
acknowledged. You did make a relevant post. I didn't remember it.
Now that you've posted a followup, I do recall the post you're
referring to. Here's the relevant part.
> What I'd do here is:
>
> d=0
> if (dodge<1)
> d = 3
> if (dodge<0.9)
> d = 2
> if (dodge<0.5)
> d = 1
>
> switch (d)
> {
> case 1:
> slog("%s easily dodged attack...", being[k].name);
> return 1;
> case 2:
> slog("%s hardly dodged attack...", being[k].name);
> return 1;
> case 3:
> slog("%s dodged attack...", being[k].name);
> return 1;
> }
>
> This is pretty easy to read but, it also shows that there are tens of
> millions of ways to do this.
I see what you're trying to do. I dislike this code, though I didn't
bother saying so at the time. The meaning of the variable "d"
and the values 1, 2, and 3 are unclear. You unnecessarily assign
values to d multiple times because use don't use "else". Yes,
it demonstrates that there are multiple ways to do the same thing.
Your way is not good. (And it has numerous syntax errors, though
that's easy to fix.)
It would be improved by using an enum rather than the meaningless values
1, 2, and 3, though I still dislike the addition of a second layer of
complexity.
To be clear, my opinion of your code has nothing to do with the fact
that you wrote it.
I suggest that something like this would be much clearer:
if (dodge < 0.5) {
slog("%s easily dodged attack...", being[k].name);
return 1;
}
else if (dodge < 0.9) {
slog("%s hardly dodged attack...", being[k].name);
return 1;
}
else if (dodge < 1.0) {
slog("%s dodged attack...", being[k].name);
return 1;
}
Or I might even write it like this:
const char *const dodged =
dodge < 0.5 ? "easily dodged" :
dodge < 0.9 ? "hardly dodged" :
dodge < 1.0 ? "dodged" : NULL;
if (dodged) {
slog("%s %s attack...", being[k].name, dodged);
}
--
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 | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 03:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117qchp$mcr6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401746 |
Lane W pisze: > Keith Thompson wrote: > >> I'm aware that you posted in response to a post that discussed C++, >> one that I didn't complain about. That post was from a comp.lang.c >> regular who makes plenty of relevant posts. A little topic drift >> now and then is mostly harmless. I don't recall seeing *any* >> relevant posts here from you. >> > Well aren't you a fancy ancy. > > I guess no one likes my switch solution to the poster fir's suggestion > for unwieldy if then else. > > Now you are just being finicky. You and Janis are opposed to my switch > formulation because it was me, yes me, Lane W. Janis just said he didn't > like it. You've gone so far as to say it was not relevant. > > Talk about conceited posters. > > Why don't you back up your finicky opinion with some facts. My post of > switch avoided the unwieldy braces and if then elses. All you have is > your green faces to show against it. That's not objective at all. I deal > in facts, not opinions. in my opinion you can talk on c# bt just not very big amount preferebly it is matter of opinion : user keith thompson i guess think it should be 100% C 0% offtopics, i think it preferably should be 90% C here but 5% of offtopics is not much a problem, but those spamers we got back them (rick hodgin , ramine, olcot and so on was terrible) so if you want tell me: which language solution in c# you find such good? (i used c# like few months 20 years ago and my memory on this language was its bad..i distacte OOP tremendously, also dont like bad times with all that terrible apis for xml and things like that, its just terrible) C is still superior , esp old C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 09:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117r0uu$3r5qn$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401746 |
On 2026-09-09 02:47, Lane W wrote: > Keith Thompson wrote: >> [...] > [...] > > [...] You and Janis are opposed to my switch > formulation because it was me, yes me, Lane W. How cocky (and completely wrong) to believe that my criticism of your 'if'/'switch' code was a personal thing; the keywords I provided as hints should have made that very clear that it was really bad code; and not only "bad" code. (But now I see that there's indeed something evolving that is related to your personality, but also to the quality of your posts' contents. So I'll abstain from further seeing your contributions here. *p*) > Janis just said he didn't > like it. You've gone so far as to say it was not relevant. > > [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 07:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <117rnft$167n7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401757 |
Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 2026-09-09 02:47, Lane W wrote: >> Keith Thompson wrote: >>> [...] >> [...] >> >> [...] You and Janis are opposed to my switch formulation because it >> was me, yes me, Lane W. > > How cocky (and completely wrong) to believe that my criticism of your > 'if'/'switch' code was a personal thing; the keywords I provided as > hints should have made that very clear that it was really bad code; > and not only "bad" code. > > (But now I see that there's indeed something evolving that is related > to your personality, but also to the quality of your posts' contents. > So I'll abstain from further seeing your contributions here. *p*) I can see you are concerned about what is 'good' and 'bad' in programming. It's not important whether it answers the question a poster asked. Oh no, you've got a couple 'standards' and 'policy' cards up your sleeve about what is right and good and Immaculate in programming. But it's all dashed against the rocks as you exhibit the height of cowardice by posting this lengthy screed only to say, goodbye, you're killfiled, sucker. I'm afraid I am extremely loathe to take morality lessons from a fleeing elf like yourself. Go back and cry to Lord Elrond of Rivendell about the orc who programmed with switch. >> Janis just said he didn't like it. You've gone so far as to say it was >> not relevant. >> I think it's okay if there's an argumentative relation or comparison to make some point clear. (But there's also purists who don't agree with that and shun or rebuke you for every non-C related reference.) A simple "I think A is better than B." statement is in any case not only an IMO stupid statement but it would require detailed off-topic discussions of A and of B, which are both unrelated to "C". And I'm always astonished when people make such statement, regarding tools or languages; my observation is that such people are regularly judging from a very limited view of own experience or even just from an isolated bubble. It's also not plausible that things are only B/W; but that's where animosities grow. Nobody gets anywhere by that. Try to avoid that. Myself (and quite typical) knowing only a comparably small subset of the meanwhile thousands existing programming languages I try to focus on the good things that languages invented, and on their weak points. But then there's also all this _repeated and enduring_ expression of disfavor. This is really annoying! And I wonder what these complaints should accomplish. If someone finds "C" that disgusting (and A or B "better") it would be consequent to move over and enjoy the presumed advantages of those choices in the respective group. > > The only reason people still use C++ is because of its overall speed from what I can tell. This is another example of a unhelpful, even stupid formulations (even when alleviating the core statement by a "from what I can tell" phrase. Speaking about "the only reasons", without evidence (and own knowledge of the peoples' motivations), and (in the generalized form) of "people" isn't confidence-inspiring as a base of discussion. (Myself I'm not using C++ because of it's speed, and I don't avoid C# because I wouldn't know it. - Accept that there's reasons beyond your limited abilities of perception or imagination.) > Or else they haven't been cultured enough to experience C# yet. A statement that can only be understood to have been made from a very limited experience and knowledge, disregarding what's explained above. (That statement could even be considered showing arrogance and being rude; if it wouldn't be so stupid in the first place, and be ignored concerning it's content, these irrelevant and unfounded statements.) > > What can be done to improve C#'s overall speed? This is a question that would be topical in the appropriate C# fora. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Johann \"Myrkraverk\" Oskarsson" <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 22:16 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <rTdoS.158821$RI1.77651@fx04.ams4> |
| In reply to | #401797 |
On 9/9/2026 9:38 PM, Lane W wrote: > Janis Papanagnou wrote: >> On 2026-09-09 02:47, Lane W wrote: >>> Keith Thompson wrote: >>>> [...] >>> [...] >>> >>> [...] You and Janis are opposed to my switch formulation because it >>> was me, yes me, Lane W. >> >> How cocky (and completely wrong) to believe that my criticism of your >> 'if'/'switch' code was a personal thing; the keywords I provided as >> hints should have made that very clear that it was really bad code; >> and not only "bad" code. >> >> (But now I see that there's indeed something evolving that is related >> to your personality, but also to the quality of your posts' contents. >> So I'll abstain from further seeing your contributions here. *p*) > > I can see you are concerned about what is 'good' and 'bad' in > programming. It's not important whether it answers the question a poster > asked. Oh no, you've got a couple 'standards' and 'policy' cards up your > sleeve about what is right and good and Immaculate in programming. But > it's all dashed against the rocks as you exhibit the height of cowardice > by posting this lengthy screed only to say, goodbye, you're killfiled, > sucker. I'm afraid I am extremely loathe to take morality lessons from a > fleeing elf like yourself. Go back and cry to Lord Elrond of Rivendell > about the orc who programmed with switch. > >>> Janis just said he didn't like it. You've gone so far as to say it >>> was not relevant. >>> > I think it's okay if there's an argumentative relation or comparison > to make some point clear. (But there's also purists who don't agree > with that and shun or rebuke you for every non-C related reference.) > > A simple "I think A is better than B." statement is in any case not > only an IMO stupid statement but it would require detailed off-topic > discussions of A and of B, which are both unrelated to "C". > > And I'm always astonished when people make such statement, regarding > tools or languages; my observation is that such people are regularly > judging from a very limited view of own experience or even just from > an isolated bubble. It's also not plausible that things are only B/W; > but that's where animosities grow. Nobody gets anywhere by that. Try > to avoid that. > > Myself (and quite typical) knowing only a comparably small subset of > the meanwhile thousands existing programming languages I try to focus > on the good things that languages invented, and on their weak points. > > But then there's also all this _repeated and enduring_ expression of > disfavor. This is really annoying! And I wonder what these complaints > should accomplish. If someone finds "C" that disgusting (and A or B > "better") it would be consequent to move over and enjoy the presumed > advantages of those choices in the respective group. > >> >> The only reason people still use C++ is because of its overall speed >> from what I can tell. > > This is another example of a unhelpful, even stupid formulations (even > when alleviating the core statement by a "from what I can tell" phrase. > Speaking about "the only reasons", without evidence (and own knowledge > of the peoples' motivations), and (in the generalized form) of "people" > isn't confidence-inspiring as a base of discussion. > > (Myself I'm not using C++ because of it's speed, and I don't avoid C# > because I wouldn't know it. - Accept that there's reasons beyond your > limited abilities of perception or imagination.) > >> Or else they haven't been cultured enough to experience C# yet. > > A statement that can only be understood to have been made from a very > limited experience and knowledge, disregarding what's explained above. > (That statement could even be considered showing arrogance and being > rude; if it wouldn't be so stupid in the first place, and be ignored > concerning it's content, these irrelevant and unfounded statements.) > >> >> What can be done to improve C#'s overall speed? > > This is a question that would be topical in the appropriate C# fora. >> > But which of the plethora of fora? There is no comp.lang.csharp, as I harpened on in a different tangent to this discussion. And as I am not currently engaged in sharpening the C, I do not see a reason to harken in news.groups.proposals. Happy informal poetry in comp.lang.c! -- 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 | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 09:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117r0an$3r5qn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401741 |
On 2026-09-09 02:02, Lane W wrote: > 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. No, unfortunately and obviously you didn't understand it. I'd say you missed to solve Keith's exercise, despite there had been even auxiliary information in David's post that could have helped you here understanding the point. (Hint: Is "A is "better" than B" a [true/false] information, or a personal [non-backed-up] opinion?) (And it's still irrelevant here in CLC to compare A with B whether in an opinion-based or in a substantial form.) Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jan van den Broek <balglaas@dds.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 12:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <117rknb$151dv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401741 |
2026-09-09, Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> schrieb:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
[Schnipp]
>> 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.
I have the feeling that you're missing the point here (or you are
just being ignorant).
--
Jan van den Broek
balglaas@dds.nl 0xAFDAD00D
http://huizen.dds.nl/~balglaas/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 08:51 +0200 |
| Subject | And then we reached C# (was Re: Official list of top C annoyances) |
| Message-ID | <117qvl7$3r5qo$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401731 |
On 2026-09-08 17:45, Lane W wrote: >> [...] > > I don't understand why it's okay to talk about C++ here but not C#? C# > is way better than C++. I think it's okay if there's an argumentative relation or comparison to make some point clear. (But there's also purists who don't agree with that and shun or rebuke you for every non-C related reference.) A simple "I think A is better than B." statement is in any case not only an IMO stupid statement but it would require detailed off-topic discussions of A and of B, which are both unrelated to "C". And I'm always astonished when people make such statement, regarding tools or languages; my observation is that such people are regularly judging from a very limited view of own experience or even just from an isolated bubble. It's also not plausible that things are only B/W; but that's where animosities grow. Nobody gets anywhere by that. Try to avoid that. Myself (and quite typical) knowing only a comparably small subset of the meanwhile thousands existing programming languages I try to focus on the good things that languages invented, and on their weak points. But then there's also all this _repeated and enduring_ expression of disfavor. This is really annoying! And I wonder what these complaints should accomplish. If someone finds "C" that disgusting (and A or B "better") it would be consequent to move over and enjoy the presumed advantages of those choices in the respective group. > > The only reason people still use C++ is because of its overall speed > from what I can tell. This is another example of a unhelpful, even stupid formulations (even when alleviating the core statement by a "from what I can tell" phrase. Speaking about "the only reasons", without evidence (and own knowledge of the peoples' motivations), and (in the generalized form) of "people" isn't confidence-inspiring as a base of discussion. (Myself I'm not using C++ because of it's speed, and I don't avoid C# because I wouldn't know it. - Accept that there's reasons beyond your limited abilities of perception or imagination.) > Or else they haven't been cultured enough to experience C# yet. A statement that can only be understood to have been made from a very limited experience and knowledge, disregarding what's explained above. (That statement could even be considered showing arrogance and being rude; if it wouldn't be so stupid in the first place, and be ignored concerning it's content, these irrelevant and unfounded statements.) > > What can be done to improve C#'s overall speed? This is a question that would be topical in the appropriate C# fora. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 14:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <117p42m$7rfr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401716 |
On 08/09/2026 11:59, fir wrote: > fir pisze: >> 5) *p.s works bad You need either (*p).s here or p->s > >> >> 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 My language has all of 'sign abs min max' built-in and overloaded for all numeric types, and 'swap' for any type. I agree that these should be fundamental types at this level of language, and not simply implemented abs/labs/llabs/fabs functions which need some header. (Which also requires an optimising compiler to turn them into inline code.) > 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; I have some of this stuff (x.msb, x.lsword etc), but it also has more general bit-indexing, for example x.[24..31] for x.hi.hi, for both extracting and inserting. Note that x.hi.hi probably wouldn't work as you expect: x.hi (when int is 32 bits) will yield a 16-bit value that is itself sign-extended to 32 bits. Then applying .hi again will yield the top half of that new value, either all 0s or all 1s. > it would make a lot of codes who need to unpack bytes nicer and possibly > faster At one time I also had x.byte[i] (i is 0..7 for 64 bits, to extract - or inject - the i'th byte), x.u16[i] etc, but those were dropped. Nobody cares about this in C because you can trivially write macros to do it. > also it could maybe work with floats/doubles > > float f = -13.888; > > f.sign; //sign This would be covered by sign(f) mentioned above, although that will yield -1, 0, 1 rather than 1/0 for negative/positive. Which one do you want? If the latter, what should it return for -0.0? > f.exponent; //exponent In what form will that be? For typical doubles, it will be stored as a power-of-two offset exponent 0 to 2047; not so useful. Otherwise you can try log10(f) for a decimal exponent. > f.significand; What that does that mean, the mantissa? > f.int; //integral part So (3.142).int means 3, or 3.0? What about (1e30).int? In C you can use (int)f for suitable magnitudes. > f.fract; //fraction part fmod(f, 1) can do that. This stuff can't easily be done with just bit-shuffling. > i.mod; //absolute value And this is just fabs() > 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 There are any number of ways to do such unpacking in C, which involve macros or functions. But your spec doesn't have enough thought behind it and sounds like idle speculation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 16:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117p51h$8929$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401725 |
bart pisze: > On 08/09/2026 11:59, fir wrote: >> fir pisze: > >>> 5) *p.s works bad > > You need either (*p).s here or p->s > i was ance talking about that and i may not even remember my conclusions (some deeper conclusions are more deep in my head it seems and not easy to get immediatelly) but i hope my older conclusion not colide with a this opinion that *p.s shold jus be as (*p).s, if s is also a pointer then *p.*s and so on the way it is in c is terrible annoyance >> >>> >>> 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 > > My language has all of 'sign abs min max' built-in and overloaded for > all numeric types, and 'swap' for any type. > > I agree that these should be fundamental types at this level of > language, and not simply implemented abs/labs/llabs/fabs functions which > need some header. (Which also requires an optimising compiler to turn > them into inline code.) > >> 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; > > I have some of this stuff (x.msb, x.lsword etc), but it also has more > general bit-indexing, for example x.[24..31] for x.hi.hi, for both > extracting and inserting. > > Note that x.hi.hi probably wouldn't work as you expect: x.hi (when int > is 32 bits) will yield a 16-bit value that is itself sign-extended to 32 > bits. Then applying .hi again will yield the top half of that new value, > either all 0s or all 1s. ye good point but some may use alternative like f.byte[3] (or char) or something, this should work > >> it would make a lot of codes who need to unpack bytes nicer and >> possibly faster > > At one time I also had x.byte[i] (i is 0..7 for 64 bits, to extract - or > inject - the i'th byte), x.u16[i] etc, but those were dropped. > > Nobody cares about this in C because you can trivially write macros to > do it. > >> also it could maybe work with floats/doubles >> >> float f = -13.888; >> >> f.sign; //sign > > This would be covered by sign(f) mentioned above, although that will > yield -1, 0, 1 rather than 1/0 for negative/positive. Which one do you > want? If the latter, what should it return for -0.0? > >> f.exponent; //exponent > > In what form will that be? For typical doubles, it will be stored as a > power-of-two offset exponent 0 to 2047; not so useful. > > Otherwise you can try log10(f) for a decimal exponent. > >> f.significand; > > What that does that mean, the mantissa? > >> f.int; //integral part > > So (3.142).int means 3, or 3.0? What about (1e30).int? > > In C you can use (int)f for suitable magnitudes. > >> f.fract; //fraction part > > fmod(f, 1) can do that. This stuff can't easily be done with just > bit-shuffling. > >> i.mod; //absolute value > > And this is just fabs() > >> 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 > > There are any number of ways to do such unpacking in C, which involve > macros or functions. But your spec doesn't have enough thought behind it > and sounds like idle speculation. > what i say its not a final specification here as syntax detail would need to be chosen yet etc but lask ot this is annoying as hell and dont say it is easy to write macros, i wroite a bit of this unpacking/acking codes and it is ugly and bad way to code this.. if you want efficiency (and you usually want in such types of codes, in my case relatet to RGB pixel opartions you need yet to experiment and test it for efficiancy using union really helps(as i was already written back then) but using union here is better than raw bitwise shifts atec but still much worse than builtin good language support (so both this minmax thing and this lack of pack/unpack) are serious c annoyances
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-25 14:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1195p2d$3ikqu$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....
>
ye i forgot the III would be probably lack of references...
c++possibly did this one thing right as c++ references can be seen as
it not fit to C but some of my deeper reasonig showed that reference
has a sense in many cases more tan pointer - esp when passing things
to functions (not sure as to syntax as it dont look much c probably
but in a wai its maybe even standable)
to the lesser annoyances add those typedef struct and no const int tab_max
> 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)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-05 04:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <119v28d$f7v6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401667 |
yet not mentioned annoyance is that if and for clauses (or how its
called)make its own blocks instead
if(a)
{
float x = 10;
}
else
{
x = 30;
}
x = 20;
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 25 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 23 24 [25]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web