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 8 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 25 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 09:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117tndb$1o1jf$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401850 |
On 10/09/2026 00:30, bart wrote: > On 09/09/2026 22:26, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >> On 2026-09-09 20:12, bart wrote: >>> On 09/09/2026 02:59, Waldek Hebisch wrote: >>>> [...] >>> >>> Some even specify individual names to be imported from a module. What >>> a complete waste of time! >> >> I fear you're just exposing your very limited perception and experience >> here. (And en passant probably also the mindset of a technocratic paper >> pusher than a software designer.) >> >> Myself I'm favoring _to be able_ to import only what I need and not the >> whole bunch of existing things of a module (with all potential implicit >> and explicit consequences). > Why? What is the advantage of so much micromanagement? > Consider modules in Python, since that is a language with "real" modules and with which many people are familiar. # foobar.py def foo() : return "foo" def bar() : return "bar" Another file user.py wants to use "foo" from "foobar.py". They can do so in three main ways : 1. Specific inclusion from foobar import foo x = foo() 2. Global namespace inclusion from foobar import * x = foo() 3. Module namespace inclusion import foobar x = foobar.foo() Each type of import has its own advantages and disadvantages. Type 1 would need micro-management if you want a lot of symbols from a module. But if you only need a small number, it can keep things neat - you only see what you actually want to use. And if the imported module only really exports a single name (like "my_class.py" exporting "My_Class"), it's a neat solution that avoids later code clutter from having to specify the module name. Type 2 lets you immediately use all the identifiers from the module, but causes a lot of problems if things change in the future. Maybe your own code has a function "fluff", and a later version of "foobar.py" also adds a function "fluff". That is not going to be good. Type 3 lets you conveniently import all the exported symbols from the module, but you need to specify the namespace when using them. As I see it, Janis favours that kind of flexibility for modules (though of course the details may differ for different languages). You seem to be favouring just type 2 - or even a "from * import *" solution. That might be convenient for a personal language where you are the only one ever writing the code - you know there are no collisions, because you wrote everything. For anyone else, working outside a bubble, it is unscalable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-11 00:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117v9kg$1ls9r$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401872 |
On 2026-09-10 09:48, David Brown wrote: > On 10/09/2026 00:30, bart wrote: >> On 09/09/2026 22:26, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >>> [...] >> [...] > [...] > > Each type of import has its own advantages and disadvantages. > > Type 1 would need micro-management if you want a lot of symbols from a > module. But if you only need a small number, it can keep things neat - > you only see what you actually want to use. And if the imported module > only really exports a single name (like "my_class.py" exporting > "My_Class"), it's a neat solution that avoids later code clutter from > having to specify the module name. > > Type 2 lets you immediately use all the identifiers from the module, but > causes a lot of problems if things change in the future. Maybe your own > code has a function "fluff", and a later version of "foobar.py" also > adds a function "fluff". That is not going to be good. > > Type 3 lets you conveniently import all the exported symbols from the > module, but you need to specify the namespace when using them. > > > As I see it, Janis favours that kind of flexibility for modules (though > of course the details may differ for different languages). Since you mentioned me - and since I don't intend after my thorough explanation to spend yet more time with bart's posts about it - let me confirm your interpretation, and give an example from practice. Note also that none of the languages I'm currently using is supporting that principle - there's no "best" language in that respect, although some are closer to an ideal modularization than others. (Some recent languages [that I don't know] may do a better job here, I'd expect.) Once I needed a function to produce Gaussian noise - and nothing else! (Back then I used, I think, the Fortran IMSL library.) - In a modern modules-supporting environment I'd have liked to have something like use imsl.math.rand.gauss I don't want the whole library, nor the whole math package, nor all the random functions. I want them neither pollute my namespace, nor do I want that libraries, library components, or functions are even considered for inclusion, neither on the program text level, nor at the binary module level, if they are not needed. In case of name clashes that happen despite a pinpointed inclusion there's still an optional qualification syntax necessary. - In case of the above example the "structuring path" could be used for that, say, for example, something like rand.gauss and matrix.gauss . > > You seem to be favouring just type 2 - or even a "from * import *" > solution. That might be convenient for a personal language where you > are the only one ever writing the code - you know there are no > collisions, because you wrote everything. For anyone else, working > outside a bubble, it is unscalable. What I find annoying with his posts is that from within his bubble he's not even trying to look outside his horizon, even with obvious things. His inept exaggerations, the sloppiness, and misrepresentations add to the annoyance. - I'm tired. Thanks for taking the task to explain that to him. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 23:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <117vc34$2dfld$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401919 |
On 10/09/2026 23:06, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 2026-09-10 09:48, David Brown wrote: >> On 10/09/2026 00:30, bart wrote: >>> On 09/09/2026 22:26, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >>>> [...] >>> [...] >> [...] >> >> Each type of import has its own advantages and disadvantages. >> >> Type 1 would need micro-management if you want a lot of symbols from a >> module. But if you only need a small number, it can keep things neat >> - you only see what you actually want to use. And if the imported >> module only really exports a single name (like "my_class.py" exporting >> "My_Class"), it's a neat solution that avoids later code clutter from >> having to specify the module name. >> >> Type 2 lets you immediately use all the identifiers from the module, >> but causes a lot of problems if things change in the future. Maybe >> your own code has a function "fluff", and a later version of >> "foobar.py" also adds a function "fluff". That is not going to be good. >> >> Type 3 lets you conveniently import all the exported symbols from the >> module, but you need to specify the namespace when using them. >> >> >> As I see it, Janis favours that kind of flexibility for modules >> (though of course the details may differ for different languages). > > Since you mentioned me - and since I don't intend after my thorough > explanation to spend yet more time with bart's posts about it - let > me confirm your interpretation, and give an example from practice. > > Note also that none of the languages I'm currently using is supporting > that principle - there's no "best" language in that respect, although > some are closer to an ideal modularization than others. (Some recent > languages [that I don't know] may do a better job here, I'd expect.) > > Once I needed a function to produce Gaussian noise - and nothing else! > (Back then I used, I think, the Fortran IMSL library.) - In a modern > modules-supporting environment I'd have liked to have something like > > use imsl.math.rand.gauss > > I don't want the whole library, nor the whole math package, nor all > the random functions. I want them neither pollute my namespace, nor > do I want that libraries, library components, or functions are even > considered for inclusion, neither on the program text level, nor at > the binary module level, if they are not needed. > > In case of name clashes that happen despite a pinpointed inclusion > there's still an optional qualification syntax necessary. - In case > of the above example the "structuring path" could be used for that, > say, for example, something like rand.gauss and matrix.gauss . > >> >> You seem to be favouring just type 2 - or even a "from * import *" >> solution. That might be convenient for a personal language where you >> are the only one ever writing the code - you know there are no >> collisions, because you wrote everything. For anyone else, working >> outside a bubble, it is unscalable. > > What I find annoying with his posts is that from within his bubble he's > not even trying to look outside his horizon, You don't try to look much outside yours either. But also, the difference between you and me is that I devise my own solutions, and do not have to settle for someone else's decisions. In any case, my module scheme is intended to work between the constituent modules of programs designed to work with whole-program compilation, more than for external libraries written by someone else. Generally these have to be more 'chummy' and are non-hierarchical, but there are hierarchical options within the program's modules too for better segregation and structure. > His inept exaggerations, the sloppiness, When you have to implement this stuff then you can't be sloppy. Perhaps you're just jealous that my scheme isn't available in your favourite language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 15:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <117vcc4$2d806$2@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #401921 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> But also, the difference between you and me is that I devise my own
> solutions, and do not have to settle for someone else's decisions.
And you insist on discussing your solutions in comp.lang.c.
I see you've posted to comp.lang.misc. I encourage you to do so more
often.
[...]
> When you have to implement this stuff then you can't be
> sloppy. Perhaps you're just jealous that my scheme isn't available in
> your favourite language.
When you're the only user, you can get away with being sloppy and
covering only the use cases that apply to 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 | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-11 00:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <117vfjs$2efu3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401924 |
On 10/09/2026 23:52, Keith Thompson wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] >> But also, the difference between you and me is that I devise my own >> solutions, and do not have to settle for someone else's decisions. > > And you insist on discussing your solutions in comp.lang.c. > > I see you've posted to comp.lang.misc. I encourage you to do so more > often. Look, this group is more or less dead (you can thank fir for breathing some life into it recently!), and comp.lang.misc pretty much is. Besides nobody bothers with topicality any more. At least I still discuss related technical topics. > [...] > >> When you have to implement this stuff then you can't be >> sloppy. Perhaps you're just jealous that my scheme isn't available in >> your favourite language. > > When you're the only user, you can get away with being sloppy and > covering only the use cases that apply to you. > The scheme I use would suffice for ALL projects I've worked on; ALL programs I've written in C (not many); and many open source C projects that I've come across. (I can't say 'most', as they are often too complex and chaotic to see if my approach would apply.) And I repeat, when you have to implement it, it has to work. It's no good if it's buggy!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 17:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <117vgv4$2e6sp$1@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #401927 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 10/09/2026 23:52, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> I see you've posted to comp.lang.misc. I encourage you to do so more
>> often.
>
[...]
> Besides nobody bothers with topicality any more.
Manifestly untrue.
[...]
>>> When you have to implement this stuff then you can't be
>>> sloppy. Perhaps you're just jealous that my scheme isn't available in
>>> your favourite language.
>>
>> When you're the only user, you can get away with being sloppy and
>> covering only the use cases that apply to you.
[...]
To be clear, that wasn't necessarily meant as a criticism. When I
wrote code for my own use, I feel free to ignore cases that I
personally don't find useful -- cases that I would want to cover
if I were to share the code publicly.
--
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 | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-12 08:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1182prt$3e2oc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401924 |
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>> When you have to implement this stuff then you can't be sloppy.
You demonstrated you can be extremely sloppy in your thinking and
in your argumentation! That doesn't mean that you wouldn't be able
to "write programs" ("this stuff"), for sure. - Another example of
sloppy thinking and argumentation.
> Perhaps you're just jealous
Your mindset is so primitive, naive, and erroneous; unprecedentedly
given your stubbornness. Your persistent habit of making guesses,
completely missing the point, topics, and characters, had regularly
been shown to be widely erroneous. - I see you can't just stop your
ineffective tries. It won't lead you anywhere.
> that my scheme isn't available in your favourite language.
I have no "favourite language". (In a couple languages there's some
concepts that I'd like to be more widely spread. - Not sure you're
capable of understanding that and notice the blatant difference!)
And you should meanwhile know that meaningless home-brewed languages
are neither of general interest nor of mine; but you seem to have a
persisting mental hindrance to understand what is easy understandable
by others. - Just to be clear; I don't know that "my scheme" you're
talking about is because I'm not interested in your posts about your
personal tools.
(I also suggest to become a bit more honest about your "achievement"
with creating your tool unless it gets some minimum general relevance
beyond your micro-ecosystem. - Why don't you advertise and offer your
tools at any more appropriate place if you think they're so important,
innovative, or generally useful?!)
Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-12 08:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1182r07$3gvcn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401973 |
Janis Papanagnou pisze:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>> When you have to implement this stuff then you can't be sloppy.
>
> You demonstrated you can be extremely sloppy in your thinking and
> in your argumentation! That doesn't mean that you wouldn't be able
> to "write programs" ("this stuff"), for sure. - Another example of
> sloppy thinking and argumentation.
>
>> Perhaps you're just jealous
>
> Your mindset is so primitive, naive, and erroneous; unprecedentedly
> given your stubbornness. Your persistent habit of making guesses,
> completely missing the point, topics, and characters, had regularly
> been shown to be widely erroneous. - I see you can't just stop your
> ineffective tries. It won't lead you anywhere.
>
>> that my scheme isn't available in your favourite language.
>
> I have no "favourite language". (In a couple languages there's some
> concepts that I'd like to be more widely spread. - Not sure you're
> capable of understanding that and notice the blatant difference!)
>
> And you should meanwhile know that meaningless home-brewed languages
> are neither of general interest nor of mine; but you seem to have a
> persisting mental hindrance to understand what is easy understandable
> by others. - Just to be clear; I don't know that "my scheme" you're
> talking about is because I'm not interested in your posts about your
> personal tools.
>
> (I also suggest to become a bit more honest about your "achievement"
> with creating your tool unless it gets some minimum general relevance
> beyond your micro-ecosystem. - Why don't you advertise and offer your
> tools at any more appropriate place if you think they're so important,
> innovative, or generally useful?!)
>
> Janis
>
lol, i told keith's team are funny asses..it needs some funcy answer:
you say 'usefull', i tell "your mum is doin new school"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cumbkA5dGDI
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-12 09:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1182tqr$3homi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401974 |
fir pisze:
> Janis Papanagnou pisze:
>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> When you have to implement this stuff then you can't be sloppy.
>>
>> You demonstrated you can be extremely sloppy in your thinking and
>> in your argumentation! That doesn't mean that you wouldn't be able
>> to "write programs" ("this stuff"), for sure. - Another example of
>> sloppy thinking and argumentation.
>>
>>> Perhaps you're just jealous
>>
>> Your mindset is so primitive, naive, and erroneous; unprecedentedly
>> given your stubbornness. Your persistent habit of making guesses,
>> completely missing the point, topics, and characters, had regularly
>> been shown to be widely erroneous. - I see you can't just stop your
>> ineffective tries. It won't lead you anywhere.
>>
>>> that my scheme isn't available in your favourite language.
>>
>> I have no "favourite language". (In a couple languages there's some
>> concepts that I'd like to be more widely spread. - Not sure you're
>> capable of understanding that and notice the blatant difference!)
>>
>> And you should meanwhile know that meaningless home-brewed languages
>> are neither of general interest nor of mine; but you seem to have a
>> persisting mental hindrance to understand what is easy understandable
>> by others. - Just to be clear; I don't know that "my scheme" you're
>> talking about is because I'm not interested in your posts about your
>> personal tools.
>>
>> (I also suggest to become a bit more honest about your "achievement"
>> with creating your tool unless it gets some minimum general relevance
>> beyond your micro-ecosystem. - Why don't you advertise and offer your
>> tools at any more appropriate place if you think they're so important,
>> innovative, or generally useful?!)
>>
>> Janis
>>
> lol, i told keith's team are funny asses..it needs some funcy answer:
>
> you say 'usefull', i tell "your mum is doin new school"
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cumbkA5dGDI
>
>
sorry becouse my bad english i am rather unable to catch some more
subtle things in this anglish so maybe it should be
you say 'usefull', i tell your mama is doin new school
maybe this would be more appropriate
(by crom.. i feel body pain again)
(fir)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-12 12:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11839t6$3lpor$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401975 |
fir pisze:
> fir pisze:
>> Janis Papanagnou pisze:
>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> When you have to implement this stuff then you can't be sloppy.
>>>
>>> You demonstrated you can be extremely sloppy in your thinking and
>>> in your argumentation! That doesn't mean that you wouldn't be able
>>> to "write programs" ("this stuff"), for sure. - Another example of
>>> sloppy thinking and argumentation.
>>>
>>>> Perhaps you're just jealous
>>>
>>> Your mindset is so primitive, naive, and erroneous; unprecedentedly
>>> given your stubbornness. Your persistent habit of making guesses,
>>> completely missing the point, topics, and characters, had regularly
>>> been shown to be widely erroneous. - I see you can't just stop your
>>> ineffective tries. It won't lead you anywhere.
>>>
>>>> that my scheme isn't available in your favourite language.
>>>
>>> I have no "favourite language". (In a couple languages there's some
>>> concepts that I'd like to be more widely spread. - Not sure you're
>>> capable of understanding that and notice the blatant difference!)
>>>
>>> And you should meanwhile know that meaningless home-brewed languages
>>> are neither of general interest nor of mine; but you seem to have a
>>> persisting mental hindrance to understand what is easy understandable
>>> by others. - Just to be clear; I don't know that "my scheme" you're
>>> talking about is because I'm not interested in your posts about your
>>> personal tools.
>>>
>>> (I also suggest to become a bit more honest about your "achievement"
>>> with creating your tool unless it gets some minimum general relevance
>>> beyond your micro-ecosystem. - Why don't you advertise and offer your
>>> tools at any more appropriate place if you think they're so important,
>>> innovative, or generally useful?!)
>>>
>>> Janis
>>>
>> lol, i told keith's team are funny asses..it needs some funcy answer:
>>
>> you say 'usefull', i tell "your mum is doin new school"
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cumbkA5dGDI
>>
>>
> sorry becouse my bad english i am rather unable to catch some more
> subtle things in this anglish so maybe it should be
>
> you say 'usefull', i tell your mama is doin new school
>
> maybe this would be more appropriate
>
> (by crom.. i feel body pain again)
> (fir)
this ilustrates this common topic:
if youre not holding any rules of behaviour you may and in a crowd of
annoying spammers like quite popular here..bot on oposite side
you got a society of fellows who have so called sticks up their asses
yet worse they oftan talk bulshit as stck up their as not guarantees
talkin sense
but those spamers also seem to have brain small as some seed
so the normality lies somewehere in between imo
(coz really this stick up the ass crowd is imo nonstandable spamers are
also nonstandable)
sadly usenet is not much large today it seems (which is very bad ofc)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-12 12:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1183a77$3lucs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401984 |
fir pisze:
> fir pisze:
>> fir pisze:
>>> Janis Papanagnou pisze:
>>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When you have to implement this stuff then you can't be sloppy.
>>>>
>>>> You demonstrated you can be extremely sloppy in your thinking and
>>>> in your argumentation! That doesn't mean that you wouldn't be able
>>>> to "write programs" ("this stuff"), for sure. - Another example of
>>>> sloppy thinking and argumentation.
>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you're just jealous
>>>>
>>>> Your mindset is so primitive, naive, and erroneous; unprecedentedly
>>>> given your stubbornness. Your persistent habit of making guesses,
>>>> completely missing the point, topics, and characters, had regularly
>>>> been shown to be widely erroneous. - I see you can't just stop your
>>>> ineffective tries. It won't lead you anywhere.
>>>>
>>>>> that my scheme isn't available in your favourite language.
>>>>
>>>> I have no "favourite language". (In a couple languages there's some
>>>> concepts that I'd like to be more widely spread. - Not sure you're
>>>> capable of understanding that and notice the blatant difference!)
>>>>
>>>> And you should meanwhile know that meaningless home-brewed languages
>>>> are neither of general interest nor of mine; but you seem to have a
>>>> persisting mental hindrance to understand what is easy understandable
>>>> by others. - Just to be clear; I don't know that "my scheme" you're
>>>> talking about is because I'm not interested in your posts about your
>>>> personal tools.
>>>>
>>>> (I also suggest to become a bit more honest about your "achievement"
>>>> with creating your tool unless it gets some minimum general relevance
>>>> beyond your micro-ecosystem. - Why don't you advertise and offer your
>>>> tools at any more appropriate place if you think they're so important,
>>>> innovative, or generally useful?!)
>>>>
>>>> Janis
>>>>
>>> lol, i told keith's team are funny asses..it needs some funcy answer:
>>>
>>> you say 'usefull', i tell "your mum is doin new school"
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cumbkA5dGDI
>>>
>>>
>> sorry becouse my bad english i am rather unable to catch some more
>> subtle things in this anglish so maybe it should be
>>
>> you say 'usefull', i tell your mama is doin new school
>>
>> maybe this would be more appropriate
>>
>> (by crom.. i feel body pain again)
>> (fir)
>
>
> this ilustrates this common topic:
>
> if youre not holding any rules of behaviour you may and in a crowd of
> annoying spammers like quite popular here..bot on oposite side
> you got a society of fellows who have so called sticks up their asses
> yet worse they oftan talk bulshit as stck up their as not guarantees
> talkin sense
>
> but those spamers also seem to have brain small as some seed
> so the normality lies somewehere in between imo
> (coz really this stick up the ass crowd is imo nonstandable spamers are
> also nonstandable)
>
> sadly usenet is not much large today it seems (which is very bad ofc)
im so sad over a dead tehnologies i dont even know (az those old ones
weirdly often seem better thatthise modern)
if the Ↄ would become internet i would try to revitalise usenet
encouraging to write here
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-12 11:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1183b2u$3m7fs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401973 |
On 12/09/2026 07:01, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>> When you have to implement this stuff then you can't be sloppy.
>
> You demonstrated you can be extremely sloppy in your thinking and
> in your argumentation! That doesn't mean that you wouldn't be able
> to "write programs" ("this stuff"), for sure. - Another example of
> sloppy thinking and argumentation.
>
>> Perhaps you're just jealous
>
> Your mindset is so primitive, naive, and erroneous; unprecedentedly
> given your stubbornness. Your persistent habit of making guesses,
> completely missing the point, topics, and characters, had regularly
> been shown to be widely erroneous. - I see you can't just stop your
> ineffective tries. It won't lead you anywhere.
>
>> that my scheme isn't available in your favourite language.
>
> I have no "favourite language". (In a couple languages there's some
> concepts that I'd like to be more widely spread. - Not sure you're
> capable of understanding that and notice the blatant difference!)
>
> And you should meanwhile know that meaningless home-brewed languages
> are neither of general interest nor of mine; but you seem to have a
> persisting mental hindrance to understand what is easy understandable
> by others. - Just to be clear; I don't know that "my scheme" you're
> talking about is because I'm not interested in your posts about your
> personal tools.
Then you are blinkered. You should be able to evaluate and appreciate
useful and innovate ideas by yourself, without relying on widespread
adoption to tell you if they are good or bad.
If, tomorrow, a major mainstream language introduced a module scheme
just like mine, would you still hate it and think it useless, or would
you suddenly change your mind?!
Obviously not, because you are bigoted.
> (I also suggest to become a bit more honest about your "achievement"
> with creating your tool unless it gets some minimum general relevance
> beyond your micro-ecosystem. - Why don't you advertise and offer your
> tools at any more appropriate place if you think they're so important,
> innovative, or generally useful?!)
I might have done that 35 years ago or more.
For example, at one time my small company produced business computers.
We designed everything about them (my job was taking care of the
motherboard). We did the PCB layout, manufactured the actual PCBs, and
populated the PCBS by hand, all in the UK (my boss owned two other small
companies that took care of that).
We even produced our own OS for it (via a 3rd associated company)!.
Today's landscape is utterly different. Can you imagine one company in
the UK producing dozens of computers per week compared with current
mass-production in the far east that produces millions?
The same with software, and with languages - no one is interested in 70s
or 80s retro languages. And coding itself is being revolutionised.
So, yes, my 'stuff' is a small bastion of languages and tools with a
particular philosophy - small, fast, simple, effortless, self-contained,
minimal and elegant. It is a continuation of that 1980s ethos where we
did nearly everything in-house.
That does not mean you have to look down your nose at what I do.
If you look at fir's recent litany of complaints about C, wasn't it
remarkable that most of those were 'fixed' in my systems language!
Last year we had a discussion about Algol68 and specifically A68G, in
comp.lang.misc. You were a proponent of that language and tool.
I made some complaints about them that you and others didn't like. In
the end I got fed and up signed off with this list of comparisons
between them and my two personal languages.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(From comp.lang.misc, 'Removing influences from a language', posted
13-Nov-25 22:39 GMT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a systems language and a higher level dynamic one, that share the
same syntax.
So here are a number of those practical features, written with the
systems language in mind, but many apply to both. A few at the end apply
to the dynamic one only.
This is why an old-fashioned, stilted language like Algol68 to me is now
more of a curiosity; it's a toy.
Features not natively present in Algol68 (that I know of, but of course
I haven't read the full spec):
* Fully case-insensitive
* Module scheme
* Namespaces
* Scope-control attributes
* Whole-program compilation (while having multiple modules!)
* 'main' entry-point function that is automatically called
* Mostly semicolon-free syntax (newline terminates statements
unless they clearly continue onto the next line)
* Full FFI with full support for machine-specific types
* Full control of record layouts and alignment
* Full out-of-order definitions for all entities
* Textual code inclusion
* String/binary file inclusion (embed any text or binary file as data)
* Int is the main signed, numeric integer type, defaulting to 64 bits
* Word is a 64-bit type used for unsigned numbers, and bit-patterns
that may not be numeric (Haskell also has Int and Word types)
* Label pointers and computed goto
* Bit/Bitfield indexing ops for both l- and r-values
* Bit-fields within records
* CASE statement that sequentially checks a control expr against N
possibilies (not the same as A68's 'case')
* SWITCH statement that checks a control expr against N possibilies
in parallel
* SELECT statement that evaluates one of N possibilities according to an
index 1..N. This is most like A68's 'case; it only exists as compact
syntax
* Simple enumerations
* ENUMDATA defines a set of enumerations in parallel with corresponding
data arrays
* TABLEDATA defines parallel data arrays without any enums
* SWAP operator
* Chained comparisons: a = b = c; a <= b < c
* 'IN' operator: if a in b..c, or if a in [b, c, d]
* ++ and -- operators, including value-returning versions
* Pointer arithmetic
* Simple macros
* Character constants: value such as 'A' up to 'ABCDEFGH' occupy one
Word value
* Multiple assignments: (a, b, c) := (x, y, z)
* Multiple function return values: (a, b) := f(x)
* Experimental piping operator: x -> F -> G means G(F(x))
* Default function arguments
* Named keyword arguments
* For-loops that work over the values of a collection rather than an
integer range
* REPEAT-UNTIL
* Looping CASE and SWITCH: DOCASE and DOSWITCH
* Loop controls EXIT, REDO, NEXT can work with nested loops
* ELSE clause for FOR-loops (as in Python)
* Two special forms of DOSWITCH: DOSWITCHU uses multi-point dispatch
code (to work better with branch prediction), of use within bytecode
dispatch loops
* And DOSWITCHX; needs extra setup code but can be 5% faster
* Function tables which can be interrogated at runtime for function
names and addresses
* Built-in READ+READLN and PRINT+PRINTLN /statements/
* Type-punning conversions including of r-values
* Encapsulation: anything defined in a Record type can be accessed via
the namespace scheme
Following are dynamic language only:
* Arbitrary precision decimal floating point arithmetic
* Pascal-style bit-sets: ['A'..'Z', 'a'..'z']
* Bit-arrays (actually of u1/u2/u4 elements) and bit pointers
* Built-in hash-table arrays
* 'IN' operator where RHS is a collection
* Basic exceptions
* First-class types and operators
I haven't mentioned my tools or their performance. Let's just say the
self-hosted systems compiler builds itself in 0.1 seconds, on the same
machine that A68G builds in 35 seconds, if fast-tracked. They're nippy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-12 14:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1183h29$3o9bn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401986 |
bart pisze: > * Mostly semicolon-free syntax (newline terminates statements > unless they clearly continue onto the next line) make it also ,-free becouse most (if not strictly any) , is not needed as space is a separtor ... i just like removed , and turned :: into , (as it was fee and better lookin) ";" advanced to be a paragraph(block) end sign also many () in function calls also not needed as i showed in previous examples as for this " " "," ";" syntax i just described it is probably and of the road here, cant do better/much beter robably (except maybe ; is not best looking so this sign eventually can change but the schem is like cleanest possible imo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-12 14:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1183hol$3ofik$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401987 |
fir pisze:
> bart pisze:
>> * Mostly semicolon-free syntax (newline terminates statements
>> unless they clearly continue onto the next line)
>
> make it also ,-free becouse most (if not strictly any) , is not
> needed as space is a separtor ... i just like removed , and
> turned :: into , (as it was fee and better lookin)
>
> ";" advanced to be a paragraph(block) end sign
>
> also many () in function calls also not needed as i showed in previous
> examples
>
>
> as for this " " "," ";" syntax i just described it is probably and of
> the road here, cant do better/much beter robably (except maybe ; is not
> best looking so this sign eventually can change but the schem is like
> cleanest possible imo
>
>
there is also an option of making blocks of blocks that would need
more signs - or repeating one etc
foo()
a b c, d e f, g h;
i j, k, l m n, o, p; ;
v w, x;
q, r s, t u; ;
;
of course ;; not lokin good but something better here
so this is the same as
foo()
{
{{ {a b c, d e f, g h}
{i j, k, l m n, o, p}}
{{v w, x}
{q, r s, t u} }
}
thus the logial lines in functions can be indexed foo[1][0][0] would be
v x (v(x) call)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-12 15:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1183ide$3oo2d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401988 |
fir pisze:
> fir pisze:
>> bart pisze:
>>> * Mostly semicolon-free syntax (newline terminates statements
>>> unless they clearly continue onto the next line)
>>
>> make it also ,-free becouse most (if not strictly any) , is not
>> needed as space is a separtor ... i just like removed , and
>> turned :: into , (as it was fee and better lookin)
>>
>> ";" advanced to be a paragraph(block) end sign
>>
>> also many () in function calls also not needed as i showed in previous
>> examples
>>
>>
>> as for this " " "," ";" syntax i just described it is probably and of
>> the road here, cant do better/much beter robably (except maybe ; is
>> not best looking so this sign eventually can change but the schem is
>> like cleanest possible imo
>>
>>
> there is also an option of making blocks of blocks that would need
> more signs - or repeating one etc
>
>
> foo()
> a b c, d e f, g h;
> i j, k, l m n, o, p; ;
>
> v w, x;
> q, r s, t u; ;
> ;
>
>
> of course ;; not lokin good but something better here
>
> so this is the same as
>
> foo()
> {
> {{ {a b c, d e f, g h}
> {i j, k, l m n, o, p}}
> {{v w, x}
> {q, r s, t u} }
> }
>
>
> thus the logial lines in functions can be indexed foo[1][0][0] would be
> v x (v(x) call)
>
the question is qhat with if-else and loops
if(a) {b c} else {d e}
btw if (as sorta is in c if(a) x; is replacement of if (a) {x;}
then more logical it would be id(a) x; <--> if(a) {x} the if (a) {x;}
has less sense
in case of ifs it sees it probably shuld be
{ if(a) {b c} else {d e} }
so one block is not divided here on 2 subblocks but there is also a 'rest'
also that can be a loop though im not sure to this both
in such case elements of normal c code probably also can be adressed
though c codes are mostly shallow-wide not much vertical as blocks
usually are mady by this if and for
void DeallocFont(BMFont* f)
{
if(!f) return;
for(int i = 0; i < 256; i++)
{
if(f->g[i].alpha)
{
free(f->g[i].alpha);
f->g[i].alpha = NULL;
}
}
free(f);
}
here DeallocFont.0 would be if(!f) return;
DeallocFont.0.0 would be return
(not sure as to "if(!f)" also index as subblock - maybe
then 0,0 would be "if(!f) " soe 0.0.1 would be !f
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-12 14:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1183jqn$3p8lq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401987 |
On 12/09/2026 13:37, fir wrote:
> bart pisze:
>> * Mostly semicolon-free syntax (newline terminates statements
>> unless they clearly continue onto the next line)
>
> make it also ,-free becouse most (if not strictly any) , is not
> needed as space is a separtor ...
Removing intra-line commas is not really practical. Even if technically
some code can be parsed without it, humans have difficulty.
Some structure is needed. Take this parameter list with commas:
(a b c, d e)
'a' and 'd' are types; b, c, e are parameter names. Without the commas
it would just be:
(a b c d e)
(In my language, user-defined types are not resolved into types until
after parsing. The parser relies on structure to determine which names
are types.)
While a function call like F(a + b, -1, sin c) ('sin' is an operator),
would become:
F(a + b -1 sin c)
It all runs together, and here there is also an ambiguity between "b,
-1" and "b - 1".
However, I /have/ looked at interline commas: this is where you have a
long list of data initialisers, one per line. There it would be less of
a problem as newline acts as separator.
But I still found it troublesome as the parser needs to keep track of
whether it's a semicolon- or comma-separated context.
(This is partly implemented, but as I can't remember in which language
or context, I find it easier to just write the commas.)
> i just like removed , and
> turned :: into , (as it was fee and better lookin)
Really? So C's 'std::cout' becomes 'std,cout'? That looks totally wrong.
> also many () in function calls also not needed as i showed in previous
> examples
Minimalist just doesn't work, sorry. It might in a language like Haskell
which has special rules (and features like currying), but that is not
the kind of language I want to write.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-12 15:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1183kvg$3plpi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401991 |
bart pisze:
> On 12/09/2026 13:37, fir wrote:
>> bart pisze:
>>> * Mostly semicolon-free syntax (newline terminates statements
>>> unless they clearly continue onto the next line)
>>
>> make it also ,-free becouse most (if not strictly any) , is not
>> needed as space is a separtor ...
>
> Removing intra-line commas is not really practical. Even if technically
> some code can be parsed without it, humans have difficulty.
>
> Some structure is needed. Take this parameter list with commas:
>
> (a b c, d e)
>
> 'a' and 'd' are types; b, c, e are parameter names. Without the commas
> it would just be:
>
> (a b c d e)
>
its becouse you give examples with not know what it mean if it would be
int b c float e its more clear (fully clear imo
though im was not saying on this case - as i said , works in a place of
; (its a "logical line" seperator so it work like ";" in c where the c
usages of "," are ust removed
i mean , removed
; replaced by ,
> (In my language, user-defined types are not resolved into types until
> after parsing. The parser relies on structure to determine which names
> are types.)
>
> While a function call like F(a + b, -1, sin c) ('sin' is an operator),
> would become:
>
> F(a + b -1 sin c)
>
F a+b -1 sin c
is clear imo 9though better is to use separate - sign for neg values
not subtraction)
in above i mean probably its good to take you baf write
foo arg arg arg foo arg arg
i mean "only one function acll in logical line so you would need
foo arg arg arg, foo arg arg
to satisfy this rule so if
you see this
F a+b -1 sin c
you know its one function call thus sin c is argument
> It all runs together, and here there is also an ambiguity between "b,
> -1" and "b - 1".
>
> However, I /have/ looked at interline commas: this is where you have a
> long list of data initialisers, one per line. There it would be less of
> a problem as newline acts as separator.
>
> But I still found it troublesome as the parser needs to keep track of
> whether it's a semicolon- or comma-separated context.
>
> (This is partly implemented, but as I can't remember in which language
> or context, I find it easier to just write the commas.)
>
>> i just like removed , and
>> turned :: into , (as it was fee and better lookin)
>
>
sorry i meant ; not :: (shift didnt worked )
> Really? So C's 'std::cout' becomes 'std,cout'? That looks totally wrong.
>
>> also many () in function calls also not needed as i showed in previous
>> examples
>
> Minimalist just doesn't work, sorry. It might in a language like Haskell
> which has special rules (and features like currying), but that is not
> the kind of language I want to write.
>
>
there is alos to use ' optionally i mean some may use them in ()
like
print a b c
may use
(print a b c) //optionally
or
print (a b c) //optionally
or
print (a,b,c) //optionally
aventually
thet would probbaly not collide with general "bare naked" {s n j, s d f,
s d}
syntax
im not sure if allowing print(a b c) could not cause slight collisions
if so some slight changes there would need be here but in worst case
it would be disalowed but probably i would prefer in worst case
doing meaningful space it is not eventually allowing
print (a b c)
in that case (at worst ) but maybe its not needed, i would need to check it
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-12 15:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1183lh3$3ptp5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401994 |
fir pisze:
> bart pisze:
>> On 12/09/2026 13:37, fir wrote:
>>> bart pisze:
>>>> * Mostly semicolon-free syntax (newline terminates statements
>>>> unless they clearly continue onto the next line)
>>>
>>> make it also ,-free becouse most (if not strictly any) , is not
>>> needed as space is a separtor ...
>>
>> Removing intra-line commas is not really practical. Even if
>> technically some code can be parsed without it, humans have difficulty.
>>
>> Some structure is needed. Take this parameter list with commas:
>>
>> (a b c, d e)
>>
>> 'a' and 'd' are types; b, c, e are parameter names. Without the commas
>> it would just be:
>>
>> (a b c d e)
>>
>
> its becouse you give examples with not know what it mean if it would be
>
> int b c float e its more clear (fully clear imo
>
> though im was not saying on this case - as i said , works in a place of
> ; (its a "logical line" seperator so it work like ";" in c where the c
> usages of "," are ust removed
>
> i mean , removed
> ; replaced by ,
>
>
>
>> (In my language, user-defined types are not resolved into types until
>> after parsing. The parser relies on structure to determine which names
>> are types.)
>>
>> While a function call like F(a + b, -1, sin c) ('sin' is an operator),
>> would become:
>>
>> F(a + b -1 sin c)
>>
>
> F a+b -1 sin c
>
> is clear imo 9though better is to use separate - sign for neg values
> not subtraction)
>
> in above i mean probably its good to take you baf write
>
> foo arg arg arg foo arg arg
>
> i mean "only one function acll in logical line so you would need
>
> foo arg arg arg, foo arg arg
>
> to satisfy this rule so if
>
> you see this
>
> F a+b -1 sin c
>
> you know its one function call thus sin c is argument
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> It all runs together, and here there is also an ambiguity between "b,
>> -1" and "b - 1".
>>
>> However, I /have/ looked at interline commas: this is where you have a
>> long list of data initialisers, one per line. There it would be less
>> of a problem as newline acts as separator.
>>
>> But I still found it troublesome as the parser needs to keep track of
>> whether it's a semicolon- or comma-separated context.
>>
>> (This is partly implemented, but as I can't remember in which language
>> or context, I find it easier to just write the commas.)
>>
>>> i just like removed , and
>>> turned :: into , (as it was fee and better lookin)
>>
>>
>
> sorry i meant ; not :: (shift didnt worked )
>
>> Really? So C's 'std::cout' becomes 'std,cout'? That looks totally wrong.
>>
>>> also many () in function calls also not needed as i showed in
>>> previous examples
>>
>> Minimalist just doesn't work, sorry. It might in a language like
>> Haskell which has special rules (and features like currying), but that
>> is not the kind of language I want to write.
>>
>>
>
> there is alos to use ' optionally i mean some may use them in ()
>
> like
>
> print a b c
>
> may use
>
> (print a b c) //optionally
>
> or
>
> print (a b c) //optionally
>
> or
> print (a,b,c) //optionally
>
> aventually
>
> thet would probbaly not collide with general "bare naked" {s n j, s d f,
> s d}
> syntax
>
>
> im not sure if allowing print(a b c) could not cause slight collisions
> if so some slight changes there would need be here but in worst case
> it would be disalowed but probably i would prefer in worst case
> doing meaningful space it is not eventually allowing
>
> print (a b c)
>
> in that case (at worst ) but maybe its not needed, i would need to
> check it
>
>
you probbaly mean such cases
foo a b c (d f) e
note if c is a function and it takes 2 arguments its
not clear if its
foo a b c (d f) e
or
foo a b c((d f) e )
if d e are values then it probably ishould be first but if
d is a function it probably should be the second
generally i dont see a clear problems here, somebody would need to give
me some problematic example coz i dont see any (not seeing ofr sure i
inspected all bot seemd to ma like it iis ok or close to okay)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-12 16:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1183m7q$3q8hi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401996 |
fir pisze: > > F a+b -1 sin c this second minus is in fact needed so normally this above is f a+b-2 sin(c) unicode as usually instead of having something cruciallu usful provides soem weirdos here this above with -2 not subtraction would be f a+b ˗2 sin(c) but meybe somethin could be find
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-12 16:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1183ms7$3qhdt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401997 |
fir pisze: > fir pisze: >> >> F a+b -1 sin c > > this second minus is in fact needed so normally > > this above is f a+b-2 sin(c) > > unicode as usually instead of having something cruciallu usful provides > soem weirdos here > > this above with -2 not subtraction would be f a+b ˗2 sin(c) > > but meybe somethin could be find unicode has such options 2-2*﹣2 2-2*˗2 2-2*₋2 2-2*⁻2 no one looks much good in seamonkey reader i use , this third looks standable though but thats depend on font i guess
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 25 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web