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 4 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 25 Next page →
| From | Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 08:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <117rp3g$16raf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401800 |
fir wrote:
> Lane W pisze:
>> David Brown wrote:
>>> On 09/09/2026 15:14, Lane W wrote:
>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>>> C's include system works well when used in a sensible and
>>>>> disciplined manner, but unfortunately not all C programmers are
>>>>> sensible and disciplined.
>>>>>
>>>> Agreed. Plus some C programmers use the switch keyword, which we all
>>>> agree is BAD BAD BAD, right Janis and Keith?
>>>>
>>>> In fact at work, I'm regularly known as __The Evil One__ because of
>>>> my propensity to use the switch construct.
>>>>
>>>> Every company brochure shows my position as Sauron in the company
>>>> fables, with my signature golden ring. Pure evil, I guarantee it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can't understand where this martyr complex comes from. I saw your
>>> post about an alternative way to structure fir's code, and I thought
>>> it was a poor solution. That was not because it used "switch", or
>>> because /you/ wrote it, but simply because I did not think it was a
>>> clear or maintainable way to express the algorithm. It added
>>> complexity and a layer of indirection without adding advantages of
>>> flexibility or clarity. (I fully agree with your comment in the post
>>> that there are many ways to structure the code here - without knowing
>>> much more about the program, it is impossible to give a good
>>> comparison to them.)
>>>
>>> If you don't want people to express opinions on code snippets or
>>> suggestions, don't post them. I think most regulars here (and
>>> certainly Janis and Keith) will judge them as fairly as they can, on
>>> the merits of the code - with a total disregard to who posts them.
>>> (The exception is that many regulars have kill-filed some of the more
>>> irksome posters.)
>>>
>>> Don't imagine that people will treat your posts or code samples
>>> specially. You are not that important, and you haven't been posting
>>> in c.l.c. long enough to have established much of a reputation
>>> (positive or negative).
>>>
>>> It would be a lot better if you stuck to writing posts that are
>>> sensible replies within threads, or start new topical threads. Post
>>> C code, get feedback on it, and treat that feedback as constructive
>>> criticism of the code - not as some kind of personal attack. (My
>>> post here is intended as constructive criticism - it is not a
>>> personal attack.)
>>>
>>>
>> It's because many of the lot of you are tying your hands with what
>> you think Policy tells you. The poster asked how to avoid if then else
>> and I showed him a way. It solved his problem. Where is the evil in
>> that? Who is this deity you worship that say to you you can gauge a
>> morality of a snippet of code based on your pathetic standards and
>> policies at YOUR company?
>
> in fact i was talking about quite other and more theoretical problem,
> not how rewrite tis pice of code (as to revrite i think the ones
> with
>
> char* a= ""; if(d<0.3) a ="barely" ; if(d>.9) a= "hardly";
>
> slog("siunsusn %s", a);
>
> is best)
My concern here is that Keith Thompson is going to crucify you here
because you assigned a new value to 'a' after the previous one, which
offends his exceedingly gentle sensibilities. How will you continue to
write C if you are nailed to one of Keith Thompson's crosses?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 16:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117rphm$16udo$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401801 |
Lane W pisze:
> fir wrote:
>> Lane W pisze:
>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 09/09/2026 15:14, Lane W wrote:
>>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> C's include system works well when used in a sensible and
>>>>>> disciplined manner, but unfortunately not all C programmers are
>>>>>> sensible and disciplined.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. Plus some C programmers use the switch keyword, which we
>>>>> all agree is BAD BAD BAD, right Janis and Keith?
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact at work, I'm regularly known as __The Evil One__ because of
>>>>> my propensity to use the switch construct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every company brochure shows my position as Sauron in the company
>>>>> fables, with my signature golden ring. Pure evil, I guarantee it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can't understand where this martyr complex comes from. I saw your
>>>> post about an alternative way to structure fir's code, and I thought
>>>> it was a poor solution. That was not because it used "switch", or
>>>> because /you/ wrote it, but simply because I did not think it was a
>>>> clear or maintainable way to express the algorithm. It added
>>>> complexity and a layer of indirection without adding advantages of
>>>> flexibility or clarity. (I fully agree with your comment in the
>>>> post that there are many ways to structure the code here - without
>>>> knowing much more about the program, it is impossible to give a good
>>>> comparison to them.)
>>>>
>>>> If you don't want people to express opinions on code snippets or
>>>> suggestions, don't post them. I think most regulars here (and
>>>> certainly Janis and Keith) will judge them as fairly as they can, on
>>>> the merits of the code - with a total disregard to who posts them.
>>>> (The exception is that many regulars have kill-filed some of the
>>>> more irksome posters.)
>>>>
>>>> Don't imagine that people will treat your posts or code samples
>>>> specially. You are not that important, and you haven't been posting
>>>> in c.l.c. long enough to have established much of a reputation
>>>> (positive or negative).
>>>>
>>>> It would be a lot better if you stuck to writing posts that are
>>>> sensible replies within threads, or start new topical threads. Post
>>>> C code, get feedback on it, and treat that feedback as constructive
>>>> criticism of the code - not as some kind of personal attack. (My
>>>> post here is intended as constructive criticism - it is not a
>>>> personal attack.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It's because many of the lot of you are tying your hands with what
>>> you think Policy tells you. The poster asked how to avoid if then
>>> else and I showed him a way. It solved his problem. Where is the evil
>>> in that? Who is this deity you worship that say to you you can gauge
>>> a morality of a snippet of code based on your pathetic standards and
>>> policies at YOUR company?
>>
>> in fact i was talking about quite other and more theoretical problem,
>> not how rewrite tis pice of code (as to revrite i think the ones
>> with
>>
>> char* a= ""; if(d<0.3) a ="barely" ; if(d>.9) a= "hardly";
>>
>> slog("siunsusn %s", a);
>>
>> is best)
>
> My concern here is that Keith Thompson is going to crucify you here
> because you assigned a new value to 'a' after the previous one, which
> offends his exceedingly gentle sensibilities. How will you continue to
> write C if you are nailed to one of Keith Thompson's crosses?
im not so uch sensitive on such kind of opinions i guess ;c
for me here either something is interestin or no interesting and i make
my own choices as to coding style (yawn)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 16:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <117sq5s$1ieoa$1@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #401801 |
Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> writes:
> fir wrote:
[...]
>> in fact i was talking about quite other and more theoretical
>> problem,
>> not how rewrite tis pice of code (as to revrite i think the ones
>> with
>> char* a= ""; if(d<0.3) a ="barely" ; if(d>.9) a= "hardly";
>> slog("siunsusn %s", a);
>> is best)
>
> My concern here is that Keith Thompson is going to crucify you here
> because you assigned a new value to 'a' after the previous one, which
> offends his exceedingly gentle sensibilities. How will you continue to
> write C if you are nailed to one of Keith Thompson's crosses?
Please refrain from mentioning my name in any future posts. I have
no interest in watching you embarrass yourself.
I intend to add you to my killfile (technically, my Gnus scorefile),
with the result that I will never see any of your posts here.
If your embarrassing behavior improves in the next few days,
I'll consider not doing so. To be clear, this is not a threat.
It's simply something I intend to do to make my own experience here
a little better, by giving me a view of comp.lang.c that does not
include you. Others will do as they wish.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Johann \"Myrkraverk\" Oskarsson" <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-18 10:23 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <Mg1rS.152818$NMu2.17523@fx15.ams4> |
| In reply to | #401860 |
On 9/10/2026 7:29 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> writes:
>> fir wrote:
> [...]
>>> in fact i was talking about quite other and more theoretical
>>> problem,
>>> not how rewrite tis pice of code (as to revrite i think the ones
>>> with
>>> char* a= ""; if(d<0.3) a ="barely" ; if(d>.9) a= "hardly";
>>> slog("siunsusn %s", a);
>>> is best)
>>
>> My concern here is that Keith Thompson is going to crucify you here
>> because you assigned a new value to 'a' after the previous one, which
>> offends his exceedingly gentle sensibilities. How will you continue to
>> write C if you are nailed to one of Keith Thompson's crosses?
>
> Please refrain from mentioning my name in any future posts. I have
> no interest in watching you embarrass yourself.
>
> I intend to add you to my killfile (technically, my Gnus scorefile),
> with the result that I will never see any of your posts here.
> If your embarrassing behavior improves in the next few days,
> I'll consider not doing so. To be clear, this is not a threat.
> It's simply something I intend to do to make my own experience here
> a little better, by giving me a view of comp.lang.c that does not
> include you. Others will do as they wish.
>
Don't worry about Keith. He just thinks too highly of himself. It's
much better to silently killfile people that to /threaten it/.
Best wishes, and happy killfiling Keith!
--
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 | 2026-09-09 16:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117rpbp$16udo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401800 |
fir pisze:
> so conclusions were c lacks some language construct which i described as
>
> case() {}
> case() {}
> case() {}
> otherwise {}
this is in fact kinda 'typical' construct when some talk on cases
of usage so imo it could even be written in horizontal
case(d<.3) { slog("dodged hardly"); } case(d>.9) {slog("dodged
barely");} otherwise {slog("dodged");}
i mean it can be written vertical as only one of this subblocks will execute
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 16:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117rpt7$174im$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401803 |
fir pisze:
> fir pisze:
>> so conclusions were c lacks some language construct which i described as
>>
>> case() {}
>> case() {}
>> case() {}
>> otherwise {}
>
>
> this is in fact kinda 'typical' construct when some talk on cases
> of usage so imo it could even be written in horizontal
>
>
> case(d<.3) { slog("dodged hardly"); } case(d>.9) {slog("dodged
> barely");} otherwise {slog("dodged");}
>
> i mean it can be written vertical as only one of this subblocks will
> execute
>
in fact hovever more thus subblocks could also execute..for me most
interesting is conclusion thatthis seem the most natural syntax ofr switch
case() { } case(){ } otherwise {}
abstracting away form thise syntax details
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 17:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117rsev$170nh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401798 |
On 09/09/2026 15:41, Lane W wrote: > David Brown wrote: >> On 09/09/2026 15:14, Lane W wrote: >>> David Brown wrote: >> >>>> C's include system works well when used in a sensible and >>>> disciplined manner, but unfortunately not all C programmers are >>>> sensible and disciplined. >>>> >>> Agreed. Plus some C programmers use the switch keyword, which we all >>> agree is BAD BAD BAD, right Janis and Keith? >>> >>> In fact at work, I'm regularly known as __The Evil One__ because of >>> my propensity to use the switch construct. >>> >>> Every company brochure shows my position as Sauron in the company >>> fables, with my signature golden ring. Pure evil, I guarantee it. >>> >> >> I can't understand where this martyr complex comes from. I saw your >> post about an alternative way to structure fir's code, and I thought >> it was a poor solution. That was not because it used "switch", or >> because /you/ wrote it, but simply because I did not think it was a >> clear or maintainable way to express the algorithm. It added >> complexity and a layer of indirection without adding advantages of >> flexibility or clarity. (I fully agree with your comment in the post >> that there are many ways to structure the code here - without knowing >> much more about the program, it is impossible to give a good >> comparison to them.) >> >> If you don't want people to express opinions on code snippets or >> suggestions, don't post them. I think most regulars here (and >> certainly Janis and Keith) will judge them as fairly as they can, on >> the merits of the code - with a total disregard to who posts them. >> (The exception is that many regulars have kill-filed some of the more >> irksome posters.) >> >> Don't imagine that people will treat your posts or code samples >> specially. You are not that important, and you haven't been posting >> in c.l.c. long enough to have established much of a reputation >> (positive or negative). >> >> It would be a lot better if you stuck to writing posts that are >> sensible replies within threads, or start new topical threads. Post C >> code, get feedback on it, and treat that feedback as constructive >> criticism of the code - not as some kind of personal attack. (My post >> here is intended as constructive criticism - it is not a personal >> attack.) >> >> > It's because many of the lot of you are tying your hands with what you > think Policy tells you. The poster asked how to avoid if then else and I > showed him a way. It solved his problem. Where is the evil in that? Who > is this deity you worship that say to you you can gauge a morality of a > snippet of code based on your pathetic standards and policies at YOUR > company? Nobody except you has described your code as "evil" or thinks morality has anything to do with it. People just didn't like your code example - they thought it was unnecessarily complex and a poor choice of structure. Oh, and the OP did not ask to avoid "if then else" - he wanted ideas of a different structure from the one he had.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 15:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <117rpf0$16ttd$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401795 |
On 09/09/2026 14:31, David Brown wrote: > On 09/09/2026 15:14, Lane W wrote: >> David Brown wrote: > >>> C's include system works well when used in a sensible and disciplined >>> manner, but unfortunately not all C programmers are sensible and >>> disciplined. >>> >> Agreed. Plus some C programmers use the switch keyword, which we all >> agree is BAD BAD BAD, right Janis and Keith? >> >> In fact at work, I'm regularly known as __The Evil One__ because of my >> propensity to use the switch construct. >> >> Every company brochure shows my position as Sauron in the company >> fables, with my signature golden ring. Pure evil, I guarantee it. >> > > I can't understand where this martyr complex comes from. I saw your > post about an alternative way to structure fir's code, and I thought it > was a poor solution. That was not because it used "switch", or > because /you/ wrote it, but simply because I did not think it was a > clear or maintainable way to express the algorithm. Agreed. It was poor, and there was still some duplication. It was also harder to tell whether the logic agreed with the original.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 08:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <117rq8l$178sr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401804 |
bart wrote:
> On 09/09/2026 14:31, David Brown wrote:
>> On 09/09/2026 15:14, Lane W wrote:
>>> David Brown wrote:
>>
>>>> C's include system works well when used in a sensible and
>>>> disciplined manner, but unfortunately not all C programmers are
>>>> sensible and disciplined.
>>>>
>>> Agreed. Plus some C programmers use the switch keyword, which we all
>>> agree is BAD BAD BAD, right Janis and Keith?
>>>
>>> In fact at work, I'm regularly known as __The Evil One__ because of
>>> my propensity to use the switch construct.
>>>
>>> Every company brochure shows my position as Sauron in the company
>>> fables, with my signature golden ring. Pure evil, I guarantee it.
>>>
>>
>> I can't understand where this martyr complex comes from. I saw your
>> post about an alternative way to structure fir's code, and I thought
>> it was a poor solution. That was not because it used "switch", or
>> because /you/ wrote it, but simply because I did not think it was a
>> clear or maintainable way to express the algorithm.
>
> Agreed. It was poor, and there was still some duplication. It was also
> harder to tell whether the logic agreed with the original.
>
>
Here's a revision, where I take MORE THAN TEN SECONDS:
enum Dodges {
NEAT : 1
FLAWED : 2
BARELY : 3
UNSUCCESS : 4
};
enum Dodges d = UNSUCCESS;
if (dodge < 1)
d = BARELY;
if (dodge < 0.9)
d = FLAWED;
if (dodge < 0.5)
d = NEAT;
switch (d)
{
case NEAT:
slog("%s easily dodged attack...", being[k].name);
return 1;
case FLAWED:
slog("%s hardly dodged attack...", being[k].name);
return 1;
case BARELY:
slog("%s dodged attack...", being[k].name);
return 1;
default:
return -1; // not dodged.
}
WHERE IS THIS DUPLICATION?
WHERE ARE THESE SYNTAX ERRORS YOU NEVER EXPLICITLY STATE?
Am I cleared for Heaven now?
Can we get ten more people to hop on the bandwagon and RUDELY tell me
how bad it is?
I gauged that RUDENESS is something you try to avoid here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 15:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <117rrth$17sld$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401810 |
On 09/09/2026 15:25, Lane W wrote:
> bart wrote:
>> On 09/09/2026 14:31, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 09/09/2026 15:14, Lane W wrote:
>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>>> C's include system works well when used in a sensible and
>>>>> disciplined manner, but unfortunately not all C programmers are
>>>>> sensible and disciplined.
>>>>>
>>>> Agreed. Plus some C programmers use the switch keyword, which we all
>>>> agree is BAD BAD BAD, right Janis and Keith?
>>>>
>>>> In fact at work, I'm regularly known as __The Evil One__ because of
>>>> my propensity to use the switch construct.
>>>>
>>>> Every company brochure shows my position as Sauron in the company
>>>> fables, with my signature golden ring. Pure evil, I guarantee it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can't understand where this martyr complex comes from. I saw your
>>> post about an alternative way to structure fir's code, and I thought
>>> it was a poor solution. That was not because it used "switch", or
>>> because /you/ wrote it, but simply because I did not think it was a
>>> clear or maintainable way to express the algorithm.
>>
>> Agreed. It was poor, and there was still some duplication. It was also
>> harder to tell whether the logic agreed with the original.
>>
>>
> Here's a revision, where I take MORE THAN TEN SECONDS:
>
> enum Dodges {
> NEAT : 1
> FLAWED : 2
> BARELY : 3
> UNSUCCESS : 4
> };
>
> enum Dodges d = UNSUCCESS;
>
> if (dodge < 1)
> d = BARELY;
> if (dodge < 0.9)
> d = FLAWED;
> if (dodge < 0.5)
> d = NEAT;
>
> switch (d)
> {
> case NEAT:
> slog("%s easily dodged attack...", being[k].name);
> return 1;
> case FLAWED:
> slog("%s hardly dodged attack...", being[k].name);
> return 1;
> case BARELY:
> slog("%s dodged attack...", being[k].name);
> return 1;
> default:
> return -1; // not dodged.
> }
>
> WHERE IS THIS DUPLICATION?
You have 3 near-identical calls to slog(). And in this new version, NEAT
etc occur 3 times each (plus the enum names don't match what is printed
so are confusing).
Here's a version with only one call to slog:
char* sdodge = NULL;
if (dodge < 1.0)
sdodge = " hardly";
if (dodge < 0.9)
sdodge = "";
if (dodge < 0.5)
sdodge = " easily";
if (sdodge) {
slog("%s%s dodged attack...", being[k].name, sdodge);
return 1;
}
This requires slog() changed to take an extra argument, or a wrapper
created. It also corresponds more accurately to the original which I've
pasted below.
--------------------------------------------
if(dodge <1.)
{
if(dodge < .5)
{ slog("%s easily dodged attack...", being[k].name); }
else if(dodge > .9)
{ slog("%s hardly dodged attack...", being[k].name); }
else
slog("%s dodged attack...", being[k].name);
return 1;
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 17:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117rupo$191eb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401812 |
bart pisze:
> On 09/09/2026 15:25, Lane W wrote:
>> bart wrote:
>>> On 09/09/2026 14:31, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 09/09/2026 15:14, Lane W wrote:
>>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> C's include system works well when used in a sensible and
>>>>>> disciplined manner, but unfortunately not all C programmers are
>>>>>> sensible and disciplined.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. Plus some C programmers use the switch keyword, which we
>>>>> all agree is BAD BAD BAD, right Janis and Keith?
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact at work, I'm regularly known as __The Evil One__ because of
>>>>> my propensity to use the switch construct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every company brochure shows my position as Sauron in the company
>>>>> fables, with my signature golden ring. Pure evil, I guarantee it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can't understand where this martyr complex comes from. I saw your
>>>> post about an alternative way to structure fir's code, and I thought
>>>> it was a poor solution. That was not because it used "switch", or
>>>> because /you/ wrote it, but simply because I did not think it was a
>>>> clear or maintainable way to express the algorithm.
>>>
>>> Agreed. It was poor, and there was still some duplication. It was
>>> also harder to tell whether the logic agreed with the original.
>>>
>>>
>> Here's a revision, where I take MORE THAN TEN SECONDS:
>>
>> enum Dodges {
>> NEAT : 1
>> FLAWED : 2
>> BARELY : 3
>> UNSUCCESS : 4
>> };
>>
>> enum Dodges d = UNSUCCESS;
>>
>> if (dodge < 1)
>> d = BARELY;
>> if (dodge < 0.9)
>> d = FLAWED;
>> if (dodge < 0.5)
>> d = NEAT;
>>
>> switch (d)
>> {
>> case NEAT:
>> slog("%s easily dodged attack...", being[k].name);
>> return 1;
>> case FLAWED:
>> slog("%s hardly dodged attack...", being[k].name);
>> return 1;
>> case BARELY:
>> slog("%s dodged attack...", being[k].name);
>> return 1;
>> default:
>> return -1; // not dodged.
>> }
>>
>> WHERE IS THIS DUPLICATION?
> You have 3 near-identical calls to slog(). And in this new version, NEAT
> etc occur 3 times each (plus the enum names don't match what is printed
> so are confusing).
>
> Here's a version with only one call to slog:
>
> char* sdodge = NULL;
>
> if (dodge < 1.0)
> sdodge = " hardly";
> if (dodge < 0.9)
> sdodge = "";
> if (dodge < 0.5)
> sdodge = " easily";
>
> if (sdodge) {
> slog("%s%s dodged attack...", being[k].name, sdodge);
> return 1;
> }
>
> This requires slog() changed to take an extra argument, or a wrapper
> created. It also corresponds more accurately to the original which I've
> pasted below.
>
>
slog is vararg so it can take it -
slog is just something like my screen log/memory log for text
quite useful and neat pice of code btw
const int slog_line_max = 250;
const int slog_lines_max = 500;
char slog_[slog_lines_max][slog_line_max];
int slog_top = 0;
void DrawSlog()
{
for(int i=0; i<slog_top; i++)
text_xyc_helvetica( 10,helvetica_size*(i+3),0xe8e8e0, &slog_[i][0]) ;
}
void ResetSlog() { slog_top = 0; }
void slog(char *format, ...)
{
va_list args;
va_start(args, format);
vsprintf(&slog_[slog_top][0], format, args);
va_end(args);
slog_top++;
if(slog_top>=slog_lines_max) slog_top=0;
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 17:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117rvdr$199hj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401819 |
fir pisze:
> bart pisze:
>>
>> This requires slog() changed to take an extra argument, or a wrapper
>> created. It also corresponds more accurately to the original which
>> I've pasted below.
>>
>>
>
>
> slog is vararg so it can take it -
> slog is just something like my screen log/memory log for text
>
>
>
>
> quite useful and neat pice of code btw
>
>
i see is should add the optimisation if(&slog_[i][0]) ....
its maybe even quite noticable as this slog draw is called every frame
like 100 fps and it in turn calls her 500 calls to text draw helvetica
500 lines of memory log is much more than drawed on screen so it seems
unnecsssary but i wanted it as a history to eventually "scroll up" and
see or flush to file etc
const int slog_line_max = 250;
const int slog_lines_max = 500;
char slog_[slog_lines_max][slog_line_max];
int slog_top = 0;
void DrawSlog()
{
for(int i=0; i<slog_top; i++)
if(&slog_[i][0]) text_xyc_helvetica(
10,helvetica_size*(i+3),0xe8e8e0, &slog_[i][0]) ;
}
void ResetSlog() { slog_top = 0; }
void slog(char *format, ...)
{
va_list args;
va_start(args, format);
vsprintf(&slog_[slog_top][0], format, args);
va_end(args);
slog_top++;
if(slog_top>=slog_lines_max) slog_top=0;
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 18:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117rvvm$19goo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401821 |
fir pisze:
> fir pisze:
>> bart pisze:
>>>
>>> This requires slog() changed to take an extra argument, or a wrapper
>>> created. It also corresponds more accurately to the original which
>>> I've pasted below.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> slog is vararg so it can take it -
>> slog is just something like my screen log/memory log for text
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> quite useful and neat pice of code btw
>>
>>
> i see is should add the optimisation if(&slog_[i][0]) ....
>
>
> its maybe even quite noticable as this slog draw is called every frame
> like 100 fps and it in turn calls her 500 calls to text draw helvetica
>
>
> 500 lines of memory log is much more than drawed on screen so it seems
> unnecsssary but i wanted it as a history to eventually "scroll up" and
> see or flush to file etc
>
>
> const int slog_line_max = 250;
> const int slog_lines_max = 500;
> char slog_[slog_lines_max][slog_line_max];
> int slog_top = 0;
>
> void DrawSlog()
> {
> for(int i=0; i<slog_top; i++)
> if(&slog_[i][0]) text_xyc_helvetica(
> 10,helvetica_size*(i+3),0xe8e8e0, &slog_[i][0]) ;
> }
>
> void ResetSlog() { slog_top = 0; }
>
> void slog(char *format, ...)
> {
> va_list args;
> va_start(args, format);
> vsprintf(&slog_[slog_top][0], format, args);
> va_end(args);
>
> slog_top++;
> if(slog_top>=slog_lines_max) slog_top=0;
> }
>
> lol chatgpt corrected me indeed this if(&slog_[i][0]) cant be null at all as its place in ram table,
it also suggested using vsnprintf(&slog_[slog_top][0], slog_line_max,
format, args); and turning &slog_[i][0] into slog[i]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 18:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117s0ud$19sbl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401823 |
fir pisze:
> fir pisze:
>> fir pisze:
>>> bart pisze:
>>>>
>>>> This requires slog() changed to take an extra argument, or a wrapper
>>>> created. It also corresponds more accurately to the original which
>>>> I've pasted below.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> slog is vararg so it can take it -
>>> slog is just something like my screen log/memory log for text
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> quite useful and neat pice of code btw
>>>
>>>
>> i see is should add the optimisation if(&slog_[i][0]) ....
>>
>>
>> its maybe even quite noticable as this slog draw is called every frame
>> like 100 fps and it in turn calls her 500 calls to text draw helvetica
>>
>>
>> 500 lines of memory log is much more than drawed on screen so it
>> seems unnecsssary but i wanted it as a history to eventually "scroll
>> up" and see or flush to file etc
>>
>>
>> const int slog_line_max = 250;
>> const int slog_lines_max = 500;
>> char slog_[slog_lines_max][slog_line_max];
>> int slog_top = 0;
>>
>> void DrawSlog()
>> {
>> for(int i=0; i<slog_top; i++)
>> if(&slog_[i][0]) text_xyc_helvetica(
>> 10,helvetica_size*(i+3),0xe8e8e0, &slog_[i][0]) ;
>> }
>>
>> void ResetSlog() { slog_top = 0; }
>>
>> void slog(char *format, ...)
>> {
>> va_list args;
>> va_start(args, format);
>> vsprintf(&slog_[slog_top][0], format, args);
>> va_end(args);
>>
>> slog_top++;
>> if(slog_top>=slog_lines_max) slog_top=0;
>> }
>>
>> lol chatgpt corrected me indeed this if(&slog_[i][0]) cant be null
>> at all as its place in ram table,
> it also suggested using vsnprintf(&slog_[slog_top][0], slog_line_max,
> format, args); and turning &slog_[i][0] into slog[i]
should rather add
void DrawSlog()
{
for(int i=0; i<slog_top; i++)
if(slog_[i][0])
text_xyc_helvetica(10, helvetica_size*(i+3),0xe8e8e0, slog_[i]) ;
}
forthsi optimisation
i overally see that this slog_top winding is suelles
(i wanted before to draw lastamount of messages but in mya game case
it showed i more like reset _slog often and draw the portion from 0 to
slog_top so its like not finished as i dont needed the standard console mode
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 18:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117s2nn$1aif9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401824 |
here this memory console code in to wersion one is this reseting and one
is this that rolls and displays last N messages,
its curiosu how such code of suchlike console has only few lines
'machenically'
const int slog_line_max = 250, slog_lines_max = 500;
char slog_[slog_lines_max][slog_line_max];
int slog_top = 0;
void DrawSlog_LastOnes()
{
const int last_lines_to_display = 17;
int beg = slog_top-last_lines_to_display;
for(int i=0; i<last_lines_to_display; i++)
{
int line = beg+i;
if(line<0) line+=slog_lines_max;
if(slog_[line][0])
text_xyc_helvetica(10, helvetica_size*(i+3),0xe8e8e0, slog_[line]) ;
}
}
void DrawSlog()
{
for(int i=0; i<slog_top; i++)
if(slog_[i][0])
text_xyc_helvetica(10, helvetica_size*(i+3),0xe8e8e0, slog_[i]) ;
}
void ResetSlog() { slog_top = 0; }
void slog(char *format, ...)
{
va_list args;
va_start(args, format);
vsnprintf(slog_[slog_top], slog_line_max, format, args);
va_end(args);
slog_top++;
if(slog_top>=slog_lines_max) slog_top=0;
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 19:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117s49t$1b6j3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401819 |
fir pisze:
> bart pisze:
>> On 09/09/2026 15:25, Lane W wrote:
>>> bart wrote:
>>>> On 09/09/2026 14:31, David Brown wrote:
>>>>> On 09/09/2026 15:14, Lane W wrote:
>>>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> C's include system works well when used in a sensible and
>>>>>>> disciplined manner, but unfortunately not all C programmers are
>>>>>>> sensible and disciplined.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed. Plus some C programmers use the switch keyword, which we
>>>>>> all agree is BAD BAD BAD, right Janis and Keith?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact at work, I'm regularly known as __The Evil One__ because
>>>>>> of my propensity to use the switch construct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every company brochure shows my position as Sauron in the company
>>>>>> fables, with my signature golden ring. Pure evil, I guarantee it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't understand where this martyr complex comes from. I saw
>>>>> your post about an alternative way to structure fir's code, and I
>>>>> thought it was a poor solution. That was not because it used
>>>>> "switch", or because /you/ wrote it, but simply because I did not
>>>>> think it was a clear or maintainable way to express the algorithm.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. It was poor, and there was still some duplication. It was
>>>> also harder to tell whether the logic agreed with the original.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Here's a revision, where I take MORE THAN TEN SECONDS:
>>>
>>> enum Dodges {
>>> NEAT : 1
>>> FLAWED : 2
>>> BARELY : 3
>>> UNSUCCESS : 4
>>> };
>>>
>>> enum Dodges d = UNSUCCESS;
>>>
>>> if (dodge < 1)
>>> d = BARELY;
>>> if (dodge < 0.9)
>>> d = FLAWED;
>>> if (dodge < 0.5)
>>> d = NEAT;
>>>
>>> switch (d)
>>> {
>>> case NEAT:
>>> slog("%s easily dodged attack...", being[k].name);
>>> return 1;
>>> case FLAWED:
>>> slog("%s hardly dodged attack...", being[k].name);
>>> return 1;
>>> case BARELY:
>>> slog("%s dodged attack...", being[k].name);
>>> return 1;
>>> default:
>>> return -1; // not dodged.
>>> }
>>>
>>> WHERE IS THIS DUPLICATION?
>> You have 3 near-identical calls to slog(). And in this new version,
>> NEAT etc occur 3 times each (plus the enum names don't match what is
>> printed so are confusing).
>>
>> Here's a version with only one call to slog:
>>
>> char* sdodge = NULL;
>>
>> if (dodge < 1.0)
>> sdodge = " hardly";
>> if (dodge < 0.9)
>> sdodge = "";
>> if (dodge < 0.5)
>> sdodge = " easily";
>>
>> if (sdodge) {
>> slog("%s%s dodged attack...", being[k].name, sdodge);
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> This requires slog() changed to take an extra argument, or a wrapper
>> created. It also corresponds more accurately to the original which
>> I've pasted below.
>>
>>
>
>
> slog is vararg so it can take it -
> slog is just something like my screen log/memory log for text
>
>
>
>
> quite useful and neat pice of code btw
>
>
> const int slog_line_max = 250;
> const int slog_lines_max = 500;
>
> char slog_[slog_lines_max][slog_line_max];
> int slog_top = 0;
>
> void DrawSlog()
> {
> for(int i=0; i<slog_top; i++)
> text_xyc_helvetica( 10,helvetica_size*(i+3),0xe8e8e0,
> &slog_[i][0]) ;
>
> }
>
> void ResetSlog() { slog_top = 0; }
>
> void slog(char *format, ...)
> {
> va_list args;
> va_start(args, format);
> vsprintf(&slog_[slog_top][0], format, args);
> va_end(args);
>
> slog_top++;
> if(slog_top>=slog_lines_max) slog_top=0;
> }
>
nota BTW some theoretical remark - related to thise "knots?webs?" post i
wrote few days ago
you may name such slog an object (or entity)
its main function is
1) slog(...) it also
2) needs its data (included or initialised/created)
3) it also has function draw
4) it also has small function reset
its all good but what is a problem - problem is you need to
put especially this draw(0 and reset(0 calls in appropriate places in code
so this is not (or not only) and object/entity its a WEB or its a KNOT
and that is kinda problem
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 15:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <HdfoS.3526$8_Ge.2797@fx05.iad> |
| In reply to | #401812 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 09/09/2026 15:25, Lane W wrote: >> >> WHERE IS THIS DUPLICATION? >You have 3 near-identical calls to slog(). And in this new version, NEAT >etc occur 3 times each (plus the enum names don't match what is printed >so are confusing). > >Here's a version with only one call to slog: > > char* sdodge = NULL; > > if (dodge < 1.0) > sdodge = " hardly"; > if (dodge < 0.9) > sdodge = ""; > if (dodge < 0.5) > sdodge = " easily"; So you assign sdodge up to three times. A waste of cycles. Ugly code. Difficult to maintain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 18:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <117s5i0$1bl4n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401820 |
On 09/09/2026 16:48, Scott Lurndal wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 09/09/2026 15:25, Lane W wrote: > >>> >>> WHERE IS THIS DUPLICATION? >> You have 3 near-identical calls to slog(). And in this new version, NEAT >> etc occur 3 times each (plus the enum names don't match what is printed >> so are confusing). >> >> Here's a version with only one call to slog: >> >> char* sdodge = NULL; >> >> if (dodge < 1.0) >> sdodge = " hardly"; >> if (dodge < 0.9) >> sdodge = ""; >> if (dodge < 0.5) >> sdodge = " easily"; > > So you assign sdodge up to three times. A waste of cycles. This was adapted from Lane W's code. I was addressing the duplicated slog calls and the poor choice of enums.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 09:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117tl7s$1o1jf$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401820 |
On 09/09/2026 17:48, Scott Lurndal wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 09/09/2026 15:25, Lane W wrote: > >>> >>> WHERE IS THIS DUPLICATION? >> You have 3 near-identical calls to slog(). And in this new version, NEAT >> etc occur 3 times each (plus the enum names don't match what is printed >> so are confusing). >> >> Here's a version with only one call to slog: >> >> char* sdodge = NULL; >> >> if (dodge < 1.0) >> sdodge = " hardly"; >> if (dodge < 0.9) >> sdodge = ""; >> if (dodge < 0.5) >> sdodge = " easily"; > > So you assign sdodge up to three times. A waste of cycles. > > Ugly code. > > Difficult to maintain. > > To me, the problem with code written like this is that it is easily misinterpreted by the reader. Reversing the order would help enormously, as would adding "else" clauses. (Bart did not pick that ordering, merely copied it from Lane's code.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 15:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dAeoS.16$hJp8.4@fx41.iad> |
| In reply to | #401810 |
Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> writes: >bart wrote: >> On 09/09/2026 14:31, David Brown wrote: >>> On 09/09/2026 15:14, Lane W wrote: >>>> David Brown wrote: >>> >>>>> C's include system works well when used in a sensible and >>>>> disciplined manner, but unfortunately not all C programmers are >>>>> sensible and disciplined. >>>>> >>>> Agreed. Plus some C programmers use the switch keyword, which we all >>>> agree is BAD BAD BAD, right Janis and Keith? >>>> >>>> In fact at work, I'm regularly known as __The Evil One__ because of >>>> my propensity to use the switch construct. >>>> >>>> Every company brochure shows my position as Sauron in the company >>>> fables, with my signature golden ring. Pure evil, I guarantee it. >>>> >>> >>> I can't understand where this martyr complex comes from. I saw your >>> post about an alternative way to structure fir's code, and I thought >>> it was a poor solution. That was not because it used "switch", or >>> because /you/ wrote it, but simply because I did not think it was a >>> clear or maintainable way to express the algorithm. >> >> Agreed. It was poor, and there was still some duplication. It was also >> harder to tell whether the logic agreed with the original. >> >> >Here's a revision, where I take MORE THAN TEN SECONDS: No need to shout. >Can we get ten more people to hop on the bandwagon and RUDELY tell me >how bad it is? <snip> I'll join the list. That's really bad code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 25 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web