Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #402647 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-03 08:43 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-10-28 02:27 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 590 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-03 08:43 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-03 11:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-05 22:15 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-03 14:22 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-03 18:02 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-04 00:24 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-03 17:36 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-03 16:31 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-04 10:23 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 12:18 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-04 16:20 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-05 21:34 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 16:04 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-04 16:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 16:09 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-04 16:59 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 18:30 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-04 19:49 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 20:35 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-04 22:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 22:47 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-04 21:59 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-04 23:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-05 01:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-05 21:48 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 00:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 09:49 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 11:12 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 12:41 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-06 12:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 15:16 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-06 14:37 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 17:27 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-06 23:14 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 01:25 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-07 04:19 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-07 06:28 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 11:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 12:57 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 11:32 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-07 15:10 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 19:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-08 04:49 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-08 12:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 09:07 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 11:49 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 13:11 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 16:17 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 15:32 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 17:25 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-06 14:39 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 19:48 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-06 18:12 +0000
[OT] substances (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 21:50 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 17:06 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 19:25 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 10:28 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-07 15:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 16:40 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-08 07:24 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 16:08 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-06 23:45 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 17:08 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 10:35 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 20:53 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 12:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 17:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 16:41 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-10-06 12:14 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 12:43 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2026-10-06 11:47 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 16:05 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 18:47 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-07 00:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 13:52 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-07 14:06 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 23:31 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 18:48 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-05 21:32 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-06 06:07 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-05 16:42 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-05 18:05 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 09:04 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 04:11 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 21:40 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-16 13:12 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-06 00:59 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-06 08:16 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 04:21 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-16 04:46 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-06 14:43 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 17:36 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-06 20:36 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-04 00:20 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-04 09:05 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-04 23:44 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-05 01:46 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-04 20:48 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-05 06:24 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-05 11:09 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-06 05:22 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-06 05:26 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-10 00:25 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 01:58 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-09 19:17 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 11:53 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 14:01 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 14:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-10 21:34 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-10 21:58 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-10 17:50 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 05:52 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-11 21:16 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 23:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 11:58 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-11 14:42 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 14:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 15:35 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 14:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 17:23 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 17:48 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 19:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-12 07:01 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 16:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 20:08 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 22:02 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-10 19:03 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 22:29 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 21:55 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 23:03 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 22:33 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 21:53 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 23:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-11 15:29 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-10 15:30 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-10 22:58 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-11 09:09 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-10-11 10:14 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-11 21:12 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 03:58 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 15:32 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-11 01:58 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 01:43 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-11 09:12 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 04:07 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 20:13 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 10:36 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-16 14:22 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 15:00 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-17 01:29 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 12:48 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 12:04 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 14:09 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 14:34 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 17:13 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 16:52 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 18:16 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 20:47 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 22:38 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 11:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 03:50 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 12:59 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:28 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 09:05 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-19 14:35 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 18:31 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Bob Duff <invalid@invalid.com> - 2026-10-19 19:38 -0400
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 17:03 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 02:45 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 05:01 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 00:45 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 18:34 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 17:49 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-18 22:18 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-18 23:51 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 01:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 19:37 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-18 23:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 16:15 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 18:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 13:39 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-19 08:47 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 18:28 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 16:11 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-20 01:02 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 09:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-18 22:33 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-20 02:53 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-20 12:22 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-17 19:39 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 18:23 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-17 17:36 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-17 21:03 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-17 10:30 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-17 10:54 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-19 23:41 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 14:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-11 04:26 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 13:35 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-11 06:13 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 14:51 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-11 15:33 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-11 09:01 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-11 19:17 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 18:57 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 14:28 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 23:02 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 16:29 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-12 04:03 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-12 22:02 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 21:09 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-12 22:31 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-12 22:32 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 22:05 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 23:14 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-13 07:23 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 12:12 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 11:26 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-13 12:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 06:55 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 13:33 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 13:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-13 14:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:04 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-13 20:52 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 22:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-14 00:03 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 10:53 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-14 17:54 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 19:48 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 11:16 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-13 21:54 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-16 15:24 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 21:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-16 21:46 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 12:38 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 15:03 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-17 19:25 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-20 00:16 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-20 16:10 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 07:40 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 16:46 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 09:10 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 18:15 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:27 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-14 01:50 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 10:58 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-13 22:54 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 16:45 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:34 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-14 05:17 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 13:46 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 07:05 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 14:37 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 16:12 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 16:32 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 19:05 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 19:15 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:43 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:45 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 23:46 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 00:56 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 17:58 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 20:38 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 19:52 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-12 22:56 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 21:57 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 21:21 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 22:46 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-13 09:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 12:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 11:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-13 00:25 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 22:20 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 17:02 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 01:53 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 03:54 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-13 10:52 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-13 23:16 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:44 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 17:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 00:21 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 20:40 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 03:59 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 21:35 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 11:27 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 12:17 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 12:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 16:49 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 19:30 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-14 23:28 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-14 21:30 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 21:56 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 21:59 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 01:26 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 12:01 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 11:45 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 15:57 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 18:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-16 02:42 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 20:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-15 23:57 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 23:22 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-16 12:40 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 00:01 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 16:53 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-17 11:09 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 13:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-17 15:15 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-17 08:34 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-17 03:19 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 12:34 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-17 17:58 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 21:40 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 14:32 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-19 01:19 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-19 09:18 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-19 12:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-19 12:47 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 14:08 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-19 17:22 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-19 20:34 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 00:35 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 00:04 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-20 01:03 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 02:44 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 15:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 17:02 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 21:07 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 11:20 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 12:29 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 16:40 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-20 23:33 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 00:01 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 13:22 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 14:12 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 14:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 16:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 17:09 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 21:09 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 23:20 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 12:26 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 15:46 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 16:03 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-19 22:28 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 10:01 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 12:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 14:58 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 17:05 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 12:45 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 02:04 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 13:21 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 11:26 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 12:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 14:21 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 15:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 17:36 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 15:37 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 17:22 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-21 17:21 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 19:04 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 18:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 20:36 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 20:36 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 23:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 22:55 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 17:19 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-21 19:17 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 20:49 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 18:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-20 19:24 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 21:30 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-20 21:44 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 23:43 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 00:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 02:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 18:55 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-21 07:22 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 01:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 15:10 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 14:17 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 13:22 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 17:29 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 18:43 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:02 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-22 08:57 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-22 12:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-22 17:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-22 16:54 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-22 21:09 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 12:46 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-23 09:37 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 14:21 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 22:40 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 18:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-24 22:26 +0000
Modelling self/this? (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-25 00:56 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 16:38 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement steve g <Sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 01:13 -0400
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 22:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-24 12:58 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 21:42 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-25 10:51 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 13:54 -0700
Re: Case-Sensitivity (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-25 20:30 +0000
Re: Case-Sensitivity (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-26 10:28 -0600
Re: Case-Sensitivity (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) steve g <Sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 02:26 -0400
Re: Case-Sensitivity (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-28 15:50 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 16:42 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-22 18:38 -0600
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-23 04:23 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 01:09 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:48 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 01:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-19 08:46 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-19 15:00 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-19 16:55 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 02:40 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 17:24 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 16:58 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 18:26 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 18:11 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 19:32 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:44 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-19 22:35 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 23:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 23:29 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-20 00:57 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 00:55 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 10:25 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 16:56 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 17:32 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 18:23 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 15:28 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 21:11 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 18:34 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-15 05:17 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 14:37 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-15 20:50 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 19:59 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 20:49 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 18:51 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.com> - 2026-10-14 11:04 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 19:47 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 13:58 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-15 12:08 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 14:23 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-14 14:35 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-16 03:36 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 16:38 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 21:09 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 23:14 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 23:01 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 08:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 10:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 10:49 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 16:30 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 02:12 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 19:55 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 11:00 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 12:21 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 14:04 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 23:05 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 07:22 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 11:42 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 16:15 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 14:34 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 16:47 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-13 00:15 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-10-12 17:02 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-13 20:04 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-10-13 17:28 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-14 02:05 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 17:17 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 17:37 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 17:34 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 18:46 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 19:52 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 19:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:29 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 00:53 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 18:14 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 22:35 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:14 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 22:36 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-10 13:14 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 19:50 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 20:13 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 15:54 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 03:41 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-11 09:51 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-11 11:41 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 16:44 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 16:56 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-11 21:26 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-10-11 22:12 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-13 22:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 23:19 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 11:19 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-21 09:29 -0600
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 00:33 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 09:51 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:07 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 12:11 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:20 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 14:16 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 17:03 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 16:32 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 17:37 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 16:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-26 19:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 20:03 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-28 05:56 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:06 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:21 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-28 14:24 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-28 15:52 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 17:45 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 17:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 18:06 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 18:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 18:37 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 19:03 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 20:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 19:59 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 21:13 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 20:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 22:37 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 22:40 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 14:46 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 11:51 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:18 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 21:49 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 14:23 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 14:25 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-27 22:39 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2026-10-27 22:44 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-27 23:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 16:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-27 20:06 -0600
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 19:21 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-28 16:00 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 08:31 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 09:13 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 09:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-28 11:09 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-28 09:04 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-28 00:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 08:23 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 22:51 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 21:32 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 21:47 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 21:11 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 14:17 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 21:50 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-26 23:37 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 00:01 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 00:28 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 00:55 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 09:50 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-27 01:12 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 18:43 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 09:37 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-27 11:51 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 12:57 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-27 12:14 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:22 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:30 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:48 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-27 13:54 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 15:19 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 15:20 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 15:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 15:36 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-27 17:13 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 18:45 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-27 18:16 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-27 19:21 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 20:42 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:16 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 21:36 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 14:43 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 21:55 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 15:01 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-28 05:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:45 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement steve g <Sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 02:27 -0400
Page 28 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 … 26 27 [28] 29 30 Next page →
| From | Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 20:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <11brlc2$2230m$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403669 |
Keith Thompson wrote: > cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes: >> In article <slrn11e2aa4.2i9.dan@djph.net>, Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote: >>> On 2026-10-27, Richard Harnden wrote: >>>> On 27/10/2026 21:25, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>> On 10/27/2026 1:49 PM, fir wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> I can see it now. Somebody hires you as their graphics guy. They say go >>>>> at it. You ask well, where is the AI, you get fired on the same day? >>>> >>>> The lazy/incoherent way fir writes ... I can't see his CV getting past >>>> the AI vetting stage. >>> >>> It's okay, he used AI. >> >> But seriously though why can't he use AI for his spelling and >> grammar. > > He doesn't want to. He's made it clear that taking the time to > write clearly is beneath him. That's not going to change. > > Replying to him is a waste of everyone's time. > And then there's Keith Thompson. He makes mistake after mistake, yet keeps on trucking never apologizing. He's a waste of everyone's time. Go ahead and killfile this guy. I guess I don't mind and it will improve upon the experience you are having. -- Sometimes I just feel like I need to get away A place where I can be by myself, all alone I kinda lay down in the back yard Watch the leaves fall down on my face
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 19:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11brm7o$1uh9q$6@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #403677 |
Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> He doesn't want to. He's made it clear that taking the time to
>> write clearly is beneath him. That's not going to change.
>> Replying to him is a waste of everyone's time.
>>
> And then there's Keith Thompson. He makes mistake after mistake, yet
> keeps on trucking never apologizing. He's a waste of everyone's
> time. Go ahead and killfile this guy. I guess I don't mind and it will
> improve upon the experience you are having.
Oh, great, another one.
This "Blaine" person has apparently made up some weird fantasy
about me, based on a recent brief interaction in comp.os.linux.misc
and comp.lang.python. I suggest not engaging with his attempted
harassment.
--
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 | 2026-10-28 16:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bt2mh$139ta$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403678 |
On 2026-10-28 03:21, Keith Thompson wrote: > Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> writes: >> Keith Thompson wrote: > [...] >>> He doesn't want to. He's made it clear that taking the time to >>> write clearly is beneath him. That's not going to change. >>> Replying to him is a waste of everyone's time. >>> >> And then there's Keith Thompson. He makes mistake after mistake, yet >> keeps on trucking never apologizing. He's a waste of everyone's >> time. Go ahead and killfile this guy. I guess I don't mind and it will >> improve upon the experience you are having. > > Oh, great, another one. > > This "Blaine" person has apparently made up some weird fantasy > about me, based on a recent brief interaction in comp.os.linux.misc > and comp.lang.python. I suggest not engaging with his attempted > harassment. Interestingly I don't see his post. (He seems to be in my killfile.) A long period of time must have passed since then since I even don't recall his name. I think people can make an educated decision themselves about whom they killfile and how they waste their time. ;-) Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 08:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bs8d2$27b6n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403677 |
Blaine pisze: > Keith Thompson wrote: >> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes: >>> In article <slrn11e2aa4.2i9.dan@djph.net>, Dan Purgert >>> <dan@djph.net> wrote: >>>> On 2026-10-27, Richard Harnden wrote: >>>>> On 27/10/2026 21:25, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>> On 10/27/2026 1:49 PM, fir wrote: >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>> I can see it now. Somebody hires you as their graphics guy. They >>>>>> say go >>>>>> at it. You ask well, where is the AI, you get fired on the same day? >>>>> >>>>> The lazy/incoherent way fir writes ... I can't see his CV getting past >>>>> the AI vetting stage. >>>> >>>> It's okay, he used AI. >>> >>> But seriously though why can't he use AI for his spelling and >>> grammar. >> >> He doesn't want to. He's made it clear that taking the time to >> write clearly is beneath him. That's not going to change. >> >> Replying to him is a waste of everyone's time. >> > And then there's Keith Thompson. He makes mistake after mistake, yet > keeps on trucking never apologizing. He's a waste of everyone's time. Go > ahead and killfile this guy. I guess I don't mind and it will improve > upon the experience you are having. > the fact that KT has very strong aspect of clown youre not frst to notice, i noticed it strikes quite a dose of people overally quite a dose of people are also clowns (as they are mental reductionists and they acct accordingly )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 09:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bsarh$2860k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403695 |
fir pisze: > Blaine pisze: >> Keith Thompson wrote: >>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes: >>>> In article <slrn11e2aa4.2i9.dan@djph.net>, Dan Purgert >>>> <dan@djph.net> wrote: >>>>> On 2026-10-27, Richard Harnden wrote: >>>>>> On 27/10/2026 21:25, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/27/2026 1:49 PM, fir wrote: >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can see it now. Somebody hires you as their graphics guy. They >>>>>>> say go >>>>>>> at it. You ask well, where is the AI, you get fired on the same day? >>>>>> >>>>>> The lazy/incoherent way fir writes ... I can't see his CV getting >>>>>> past >>>>>> the AI vetting stage. >>>>> >>>>> It's okay, he used AI. >>>> >>>> But seriously though why can't he use AI for his spelling and >>>> grammar. >>> >>> He doesn't want to. He's made it clear that taking the time to >>> write clearly is beneath him. That's not going to change. >>> >>> Replying to him is a waste of everyone's time. >>> >> And then there's Keith Thompson. He makes mistake after mistake, yet >> keeps on trucking never apologizing. He's a waste of everyone's time. >> Go ahead and killfile this guy. I guess I don't mind and it will >> improve upon the experience you are having. >> > > the fact that KT has very strong aspect of clown youre not frst to > notice, i noticed it strikes quite a dose of people > > > overally quite a dose of people are also clowns (as they are mental > reductionists and they acct accordingly ) > but note if talkin on clowns there are ones who not impose their clown wiews on you ant those who do those first are okay becous ein normal cosial rules that may be even quite positive outcome of this - that second ones are shit ones this "imposing" may be of different kind - and for exampel chris tomasson is tle light one (coming around and talkin his anti ai bullshit), bartc is ocassionally also relatively light one (imposing the practice of making foam/rumbles)...KT is also light one (reccurencing his narrow philosophy and anouncing its killfiles - she cant announce he can killfile someones 100 times, so i notice instead he comes and talks he killfilled already 100 times) DB would be a hevier one here (also ocassionally) becouse some heavy words of shameless stupidity is really to much i in turn are accused of not repairing mistypes but i said what is the reason - i couldnt focus properly doin so... there is also unfortunate thing that i dont know english to much so my language constructions are not quite obvious and that greatly increase the fact that some mistypes are hard to correct (in polish in turn i do same amount of mistypes but its much easier to deduce the proper form) sadly i cant repair that - if i would write a book i would repair that (i guess) but on usenet i do some thinking and writing to much to do 1 hour of writing than 7 days of repairing mistypes (sometimes though ocassionally it can be even imposible as i dont understand what i wrote myself..its not often but happens)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 09:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bsbgr$28c73$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403702 |
fir pisze: > DB would be a hevier one here (also ocassionally) becouse some heavy > words of > shameless stupidity is really to much > he was strictly talking bulshit lies on me and that is really too much - and its fortunatelly not quite common here and better stays this way.. if someone talks such heavy bulshit lies to me that kind of fella is lost, i ca help him not io want to talk with such low people able to do that - its below every standard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 11:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11bsl5m$2bprj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403703 |
On 28/10/2026 08:24, fir wrote: > fir pisze: > >> DB would be a hevier one here (also ocassionally) becouse some heavy >> words of >> shameless stupidity is really to much >> > he was strictly talking bulshit lies on me and that is really too much > - and its fortunatelly not quite common here and better stays this way.. > > if someone talks such heavy bulshit lies to me that kind of fella is > lost, i ca help him not io want to talk with such low people able to do > that - its below every standard So in your opinion which are the 'high' people who post here? Apart from you of course; you might possibly be the highest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 14:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bss7d$2eg23$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403704 |
bartc pisze: > On 28/10/2026 08:24, fir wrote: >> fir pisze: >> >>> DB would be a hevier one here (also ocassionally) becouse some heavy >>> words of >>> shameless stupidity is really to much >>> >> he was strictly talking bulshit lies on me and that is really too much >> - and its fortunatelly not quite common here and better stays this way.. >> >> if someone talks such heavy bulshit lies to me that kind of fella is >> lost, i ca help him not io want to talk with such low people able to >> do that - its below every standard > > So in your opinion which are the 'high' people who post here? > > Apart from you of course; you might possibly be the highest. > youre trying to make foam again foam man... its quite low as this is attempt to put things low...and low is boring , has some disgusting value and also has not much scientific value being high is avaliable for anybody i would say - though many work much of bein low... ofc its not so easy to be high is come logical standards and some like that its a hard path to you i would say "stop doing foam foam man"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 09:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bsa9p$27vq2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403677 |
On 28/10/2026 03:06, Blaine wrote: > Keith Thompson wrote: >> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes: >>> In article <slrn11e2aa4.2i9.dan@djph.net>, Dan Purgert >>> <dan@djph.net> wrote: >>>> On 2026-10-27, Richard Harnden wrote: >>>>> On 27/10/2026 21:25, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>> On 10/27/2026 1:49 PM, fir wrote: >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>> I can see it now. Somebody hires you as their graphics guy. They >>>>>> say go >>>>>> at it. You ask well, where is the AI, you get fired on the same day? >>>>> >>>>> The lazy/incoherent way fir writes ... I can't see his CV getting past >>>>> the AI vetting stage. >>>> >>>> It's okay, he used AI. >>> >>> But seriously though why can't he use AI for his spelling and >>> grammar. >> >> He doesn't want to. He's made it clear that taking the time to >> write clearly is beneath him. That's not going to change. >> >> Replying to him is a waste of everyone's time. >> > And then there's Keith Thompson. He makes mistake after mistake, yet > keeps on trucking never apologizing. He's a waste of everyone's time. Go > ahead and killfile this guy. I guess I don't mind and it will improve > upon the experience you are having. > Keith is a big part of why there still is a comp.lang.c group, and why people ask questions and discuss C here. His knowledge, patience, and willingness to help people interested in C is legendary - as is his impatience and intolerance of trolls and rudeness. Sure, he occasionally makes mistakes - but not often, and he makes a point of correcting them. If you don't like Keith's posts, I'd recommend you simply unsubscribe from comp.lang.c.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 00:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11brcms$139ta$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403668 |
On 2026-10-28 00:00, Dan Cross wrote: > In article <slrn11e2aa4.2i9.dan@djph.net>, Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote: >> On 2026-10-27, Richard Harnden wrote: >>> On 27/10/2026 21:25, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> On 10/27/2026 1:49 PM, fir wrote: >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> I can see it now. Somebody hires you as their graphics guy. They say go >>>> at it. You ask well, where is the AI, you get fired on the same day? >>> >>> The lazy/incoherent way fir writes ... I can't see his CV getting past >>> the AI vetting stage. >> >> It's okay, he used AI. > > But seriously though why can't he use AI for his spelling and > grammar. Why doesn't he communicate completely and exclusively with an AI instead of posting in newsgroups, spouting gibberish at humans. (An AI appears to be the perfect communication partner for that individual! One could even think that AIs have been developed for exactly this kind of clients in mind.) Janis PS: Related question: Why do some folks here play the role of the AI and continuously feed him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 08:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bs7ud$27617$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403670 |
Janis Papanagnou pisze: > On 2026-10-28 00:00, Dan Cross wrote: >> In article <slrn11e2aa4.2i9.dan@djph.net>, Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> >> wrote: >>> On 2026-10-27, Richard Harnden wrote: >>>> On 27/10/2026 21:25, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>> On 10/27/2026 1:49 PM, fir wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> I can see it now. Somebody hires you as their graphics guy. They >>>>> say go >>>>> at it. You ask well, where is the AI, you get fired on the same day? >>>> >>>> The lazy/incoherent way fir writes ... I can't see his CV getting past >>>> the AI vetting stage. >>> >>> It's okay, he used AI. >> >> But seriously though why can't he use AI for his spelling and >> grammar. > > Why doesn't he communicate completely and exclusively with an AI > instead of posting in newsgroups, spouting gibberish at humans. > > (An AI appears to be the perfect communication partner for that > individual! One could even think that AIs have been developed for > exactly this kind of clients in mind.) > > Janis > > PS: Related question: Why do some folks here play the role of the > AI and continuously feed him. > not reapiring the mistypes has very big advantage it keeps clowns like you away.. so who would want to resign it
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 22:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11boi11$10feh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403588 |
bartc pisze:
> On 26/10/2026 20:13, fir wrote:
>> bartc pisze:
>>> On 26/10/2026 19:39, fir wrote:
>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>
>>>>>> 1 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>>> 2 divides by 2
>>>>>> 3 divides by 3
>>>>>> 4 divides by 2
>>>>>> 5 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>>> 6 divides by 2
>>>>>> 6 divides by 3
>>>>>> 7 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>>> 8 divides by 2
>>>>>> 9 divides by 3
>>>>>> 10 divides by 2
>>>>>> 11 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>>> 12 divides by 2
>>>>>> 12 divides by 3
>>>>>> 13 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>>> 14 divides by 2
>>>>>> 15 divides by 3
>>>>>> 16 divides by 2
>>>>>> 17 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>>> 18 divides by 2
>>>>>> 18 divides by 3
>>>>>> 19 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, thanks. So the pattern you're talking about is this:
>>>>>
>>>>> case (c1) {s1}
>>>>> case (c2) {s2}
>>>>> case (c3) {s3}
>>>>> else {s4}
>>>>>
>>>>> where each of s1/s2/s3 is executed if the corresponding c1/c2/c3 is
>>>>> true, independently of the others. At least one statement will be
>>>>> executed in 7 of the 8 possible boolean combinations in this example.
>>>>>
>>>>> s4 is only executed when each of c1/c2/c3 is false. In other words:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (c1) {s1}
>>>>> if (c2) {s2}
>>>>> if (c3) {s3}
>>>>> if (!c1 && !c2 && !c3) {s4}
>>>>>
>>>>> Assuming c1/c2/c3 are not modified by s1/s2/s3, but this is also
>>>>> partly the case with your proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or maybe it can be done like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (c1 || c2 || c3) {
>>>>> s4
>>>>> else if (c1) {s1)
>>>>> ....
>>>>>
>>>>> The syntax will anyway need some work to tie all those case/if
>>>>> parts together (as s2 for example could contain nested versions).
>>>>>
>>>>> Or you can forget about having to create a hard-to-grasp and
>>>>> awkward- to-implement feature like this, and either use workarounds
>>>>> like my C examples, or use another approach to the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> hahaha
>>>>
>>>> lol ye use worakarounds instead of simple right solution
>>>
>>> The right solution to what problem? It took multiple posts before you
>>> even managed to explain how your proposal is supposed to behave.
>>>
>>
>> well i was surprised how slow you think it is the reason you get
>> things slow - and that s why it took multiple posts
>
> Mainly from you failing to explain? You wrote comments like this:
>
> "this wouldnt work imo as far as im aware becouse this last else dont
> work on "group'"
>
> IMO? It either works or it doesn't, and if not, explain why 'or' was not
> just an alias for 'else'.
>
>> and i make laugh becouse its funny how some slowly take some things
>> and how bad answer thay give - its kinda laughable
>
> Well, this is the thing: given a well-specified, well-thought-out
> feature, I can probably implement it in one of my compilers within a day.
>
> That can serve as a proof-of-concept, and can be used to see how well it
> stands up and how useful it actually is.
>
> This one wouldn't pass that bar. But also, I've not convinced that you
> put much thought into it. If I implemented it, you'd change your mind
> about it, or add new twists, or get bored and think up something else.
>
> It would be a waste of time.
>
> So what's the purpose of these hundreds of wacky, random ideas: do you
> expect someone else to implement them for you? If so, in which language?
>
> Today was a bit of fun, but I can't take your ideas seriously.
>
implementation is not so much importand..as i said more than once here
the implementation is far easier that obtaining some of the observations
and conclusions
do make some implementation one nedd to do a dose of relatively shallow
work (not totally as imlementation also has its depth) but to go to
some conclusion imo needs more deep and open work
thse ideas are also not random
for example noticing that if else sytem in c is generally flawed
is quite notable..i wouldnt say its random idea
overally c as language some could say is drafted with a hundreds of
random ideas (in such sense of random)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 21:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bodc6$ul1k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403583 |
bartc pisze:
> On 26/10/2026 19:39, fir wrote:
>> bartc pisze:
>
>>>> 1 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 2 divides by 2
>>>> 3 divides by 3
>>>> 4 divides by 2
>>>> 5 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 6 divides by 2
>>>> 6 divides by 3
>>>> 7 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 8 divides by 2
>>>> 9 divides by 3
>>>> 10 divides by 2
>>>> 11 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 12 divides by 2
>>>> 12 divides by 3
>>>> 13 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 14 divides by 2
>>>> 15 divides by 3
>>>> 16 divides by 2
>>>> 17 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 18 divides by 2
>>>> 18 divides by 3
>>>> 19 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>
>>> OK, thanks. So the pattern you're talking about is this:
>>>
>>> case (c1) {s1}
>>> case (c2) {s2}
>>> case (c3) {s3}
>>> else {s4}
>>>
>>> where each of s1/s2/s3 is executed if the corresponding c1/c2/c3 is
>>> true, independently of the others. At least one statement will be
>>> executed in 7 of the 8 possible boolean combinations in this example.
>>>
>>> s4 is only executed when each of c1/c2/c3 is false. In other words:
>>>
>>> if (c1) {s1}
>>> if (c2) {s2}
>>> if (c3) {s3}
>>> if (!c1 && !c2 && !c3) {s4}
>>>
>>> Assuming c1/c2/c3 are not modified by s1/s2/s3, but this is also
>>> partly the case with your proposal.
>>>
>>> Or maybe it can be done like this:
>>>
>>> if (c1 || c2 || c3) {
>>> s4
>>> else if (c1) {s1)
>>> ....
>>>
>>> The syntax will anyway need some work to tie all those case/if parts
>>> together (as s2 for example could contain nested versions).
>>>
>>> Or you can forget about having to create a hard-to-grasp and awkward-
>>> to-implement feature like this, and either use workarounds like my C
>>> examples, or use another approach to the problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> hahaha
>>
>> lol ye use worakarounds instead of simple right solution
>
> The right solution to what problem? It took multiple posts before you
> even managed to explain how your proposal is supposed to behave.
>
> (And then tomorrow it'll probably do something else.)
>
>> (this solution may come in some plavours as i said before, but this or
>> ketword for reasons mentioned is not bad)
>
> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or' keyword
> to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real example.
>
you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way becouse
there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed combinations generally
with sole if 's and else's
as was showed here
> Because I've not convinced it comes up often enough to be worth a
> dedicated feature.
>
> Then, consider examples like this:
>
> case (a==b and c==d) {}
> case (a==b and e==f) {}
>
> case (a<b) {}
> case (a>=b) {}
> case (c==d) {}
>
> You'll find, when converting to regular C, that detecting the case of
> all false will mean checking all conditions, but now those will contain
> duplicates. It is hard to cleanly express, which is a bad sign as a
> prospective language feature.
i dont like get what you talk here..overally this is a work for compiler
to simplify it in output
btw you think i should defend the things i was talking about -
i more see its a waste of time if someone dont understand things
it is for him if he understoods or not, i have not so much time to
defend obvious things against the people who not care to much to
understand things
i would sy like its taking hours repairing a code that is
good - whou would like to do it?
generally such time spanding that you got good code and some weird
people come nad put a bulshit its wrong and expect me to explain this is
not its not a good time spending imo
i would rather expect if some will find some 'bug ' in code then he
first should understand it
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 21:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11boe8t$v04r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403586 |
fir pisze:
> bartc pisze:
>> On 26/10/2026 19:39, fir wrote:
>>> bartc pisze:
>>
>>>>> 1 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>> 2 divides by 2
>>>>> 3 divides by 3
>>>>> 4 divides by 2
>>>>> 5 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>> 6 divides by 2
>>>>> 6 divides by 3
>>>>> 7 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>> 8 divides by 2
>>>>> 9 divides by 3
>>>>> 10 divides by 2
>>>>> 11 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>> 12 divides by 2
>>>>> 12 divides by 3
>>>>> 13 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>> 14 divides by 2
>>>>> 15 divides by 3
>>>>> 16 divides by 2
>>>>> 17 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>> 18 divides by 2
>>>>> 18 divides by 3
>>>>> 19 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>
>>>> OK, thanks. So the pattern you're talking about is this:
>>>>
>>>> case (c1) {s1}
>>>> case (c2) {s2}
>>>> case (c3) {s3}
>>>> else {s4}
>>>>
>>>> where each of s1/s2/s3 is executed if the corresponding c1/c2/c3 is
>>>> true, independently of the others. At least one statement will be
>>>> executed in 7 of the 8 possible boolean combinations in this example.
>>>>
>>>> s4 is only executed when each of c1/c2/c3 is false. In other words:
>>>>
>>>> if (c1) {s1}
>>>> if (c2) {s2}
>>>> if (c3) {s3}
>>>> if (!c1 && !c2 && !c3) {s4}
>>>>
>>>> Assuming c1/c2/c3 are not modified by s1/s2/s3, but this is also
>>>> partly the case with your proposal.
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe it can be done like this:
>>>>
>>>> if (c1 || c2 || c3) {
>>>> s4
>>>> else if (c1) {s1)
>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>> The syntax will anyway need some work to tie all those case/if parts
>>>> together (as s2 for example could contain nested versions).
>>>>
>>>> Or you can forget about having to create a hard-to-grasp and
>>>> awkward- to-implement feature like this, and either use workarounds
>>>> like my C examples, or use another approach to the problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> hahaha
>>>
>>> lol ye use worakarounds instead of simple right solution
>>
>> The right solution to what problem? It took multiple posts before you
>> even managed to explain how your proposal is supposed to behave.
>>
>> (And then tomorrow it'll probably do something else.)
>>
>>> (this solution may come in some plavours as i said before, but this
>>> or ketword for reasons mentioned is not bad)
>>
>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or' keyword
>> to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real example.
>>
>
> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way becouse
> there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed combinations generally
> with sole if 's and else's
>
> as was showed here
>
>
>> Because I've not convinced it comes up often enough to be worth a
>> dedicated feature.
>>
>> Then, consider examples like this:
>>
>> case (a==b and c==d) {}
>> case (a==b and e==f) {}
>>
>> case (a<b) {}
>> case (a>=b) {}
>> case (c==d) {}
>>
>> You'll find, when converting to regular C, that detecting the case of
>> all false will mean checking all conditions, but now those will
>> contain duplicates. It is hard to cleanly express, which is a bad sign
>> as a prospective language feature.
>
>
> i dont like get what you talk here..overally this is a work for compiler
> to simplify it in output
>
>
> btw you think i should defend the things i was talking about -
> i more see its a waste of time if someone dont understand things
> it is for him if he understoods or not, i have not so much time to
> defend obvious things against the people who not care to much to
> understand things
>
> i would sy like its taking hours repairing a code that is
> good - whou would like to do it?
>
>
> generally such time spanding that you got good code and some weird
> people come nad put a bulshit its wrong and expect me to explain this is
> not its not a good time spending imo
>
> i would rather expect if some will find some 'bug ' in code then he
> first should understand it
overally instead of dwelling in this timewaste some could consider more
interesting things, for example if normal switch is like
"some true" then {} else {}
there could be considered usability of more cases
"all true" then {} else {}
"none true" then {} else {}
"only one true" then {} else {}
"only one false" then {} else {}
im not sure as to usability of this but if its usable then
it maybe can be encoded by more keywords instead of then
and else
like
case a<2 {}
case a>4 {}
case a==0 {}
case none {} //like default
case all {}
case some {}
so it seems that switch can be extended thsi way
(not sure as to usability of this)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 21:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11bofl7$vjil$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403586 |
On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
> bartc pisze:
>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or' keyword
>> to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real example.
>>
>
> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way becouse
> there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed combinations generally
> with sole if 's and else's
>
> as was showed here
There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
* To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
an existing language whose behaviour is well known
* To highlight the problem areas
For example:
if (f1()) {}
if (f2()) {}
...
if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
setting flags.
>> You'll find, when converting to regular C, that detecting the case of
>> all false will mean checking all conditions, but now those will
>> contain duplicates. It is hard to cleanly express, which is a bad sign
>> as a prospective language feature.
>
>
> i dont like get what you talk here..overally this is a work for compiler
> to simplify it in output
In my case the compiler is my job too!
> btw you think i should defend the things i was talking about -
> i more see its a waste of time if someone dont understand things
> it is for him if he understoods or not, i have not so much time to
> defend obvious things against the people who not care to much to
> understand things
>
> i would sy like its taking hours repairing a code that is
> good - whou would like to do it?
>
>
> generally such time spanding that you got good code and some weird
> people come nad put a bulshit its wrong and expect me to explain this is
> not its not a good time spending imo
> i would rather expect if some will find some 'bug ' in code then he
> first should understand it
Why bother posting in a public forum if you don't care about people
understand what you're on about? Do you not want people to engage?
Then post to alt.test instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 14:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11bog1o$vhqi$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403589 |
On 10/26/2026 2:11 PM, bartc wrote:
> On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
>> bartc pisze:
>
>>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or'
>>> keyword to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real
>>> example.
>>>
>>
>> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way becouse
>> there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed combinations
>> generally with sole if 's and else's
>>
>> as was showed here
> There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
>
> * To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
> an existing language whose behaviour is well known
>
> * To highlight the problem areas
>
> For example:
>
> if (f1()) {}
> if (f2()) {}
> ...
> if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
>
> Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
> setting flags.
So you call f1 and f2, then call if (!f1() && !f2()) {}. So, that is
your choice. Not the fault of C, right?
>
>
>>> You'll find, when converting to regular C, that detecting the case of
>>> all false will mean checking all conditions, but now those will
>>> contain duplicates. It is hard to cleanly express, which is a bad
>>> sign as a prospective language feature.
>>
>>
>> i dont like get what you talk here..overally this is a work for compiler
>> to simplify it in output
>
> In my case the compiler is my job too!
>
>> btw you think i should defend the things i was talking about -
>> i more see its a waste of time if someone dont understand things
>> it is for him if he understoods or not, i have not so much time to
>> defend obvious things against the people who not care to much to
>> understand things
>>
>> i would sy like its taking hours repairing a code that is
>> good - whou would like to do it?
>>
>>
>> generally such time spanding that you got good code and some weird
>> people come nad put a bulshit its wrong and expect me to explain this
>> is not its not a good time spending imo
>
>> i would rather expect if some will find some 'bug ' in code then he
>> first should understand it
>
> Why bother posting in a public forum if you don't care about people
> understand what you're on about? Do you not want people to engage?
>
> Then post to alt.test instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 21:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11bohun$10fjv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403590 |
On 26/10/2026 21:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 10/26/2026 2:11 PM, bartc wrote:
>> On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
>>> bartc pisze:
>>
>>>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or'
>>>> keyword to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real
>>>> example.
>>>>
>>>
>>> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way becouse
>>> there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed combinations
>>> generally with sole if 's and else's
>>>
>>> as was showed here
>> There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
>>
>> * To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
>> an existing language whose behaviour is well known
>>
>> * To highlight the problem areas
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> if (f1()) {}
>> if (f2()) {}
>> ...
>> if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
>>
>> Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
>> setting flags.
>
> So you call f1 and f2, then call if (!f1() && !f2()) {}. So, that is
> your choice. Not the fault of C, right?
It's not the fault of C. But the C illustrates the logic of this new
feature: it must only call the 'else' clause when none of the conditions
are true.
But if the most direct way of expressing it has this issue, then extra
workarounds are needed, for example:
flag=1;
if f1() {flag=0;...)
if f2() {flag=0;...)
if (flag) {}
(Note the logic here is slightly different: the else block is executed
when none of the previous blocks have been entered. Because conditionals
may have different values at this point. But we don't know the proper spec.)
This actually isn't too bad, but in that case, why do we even need this
new feature?
My main problem with it is that it is unintuitive and that its use-cases
are limited. It's also likely to morph into something else when fir gets
bored with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 23:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bokna$1192k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403595 |
On 26/10/2026 22:50, bartc wrote:
> On 26/10/2026 21:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 10/26/2026 2:11 PM, bartc wrote:
>>> On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>
>>>>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or'
>>>>> keyword to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real
>>>>> example.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way
>>>> becouse there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed
>>>> combinations generally with sole if 's and else's
>>>>
>>>> as was showed here
>>> There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
>>>
>>> * To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
>>> an existing language whose behaviour is well known
>>>
>>> * To highlight the problem areas
>>>
>>> For example:
>>>
>>> if (f1()) {}
>>> if (f2()) {}
>>> ...
>>> if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
>>>
>>> Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
>>> setting flags.
>>
>> So you call f1 and f2, then call if (!f1() && !f2()) {}. So, that is
>> your choice. Not the fault of C, right?
>
> It's not the fault of C. But the C illustrates the logic of this new
> feature: it must only call the 'else' clause when none of the conditions
> are true.
>
> But if the most direct way of expressing it has this issue, then extra
> workarounds are needed, for example:
>
> flag=1;
> if f1() {flag=0;...)
> if f2() {flag=0;...)
> if (flag) {}
>
> (Note the logic here is slightly different: the else block is executed
> when none of the previous blocks have been entered. Because conditionals
> may have different values at this point. But we don't know the proper
> spec.)
>
> This actually isn't too bad, but in that case, why do we even need this
> new feature?
>
> My main problem with it is that it is unintuitive and that its use-cases
> are limited. It's also likely to morph into something else when fir gets
> bored with it.
>
>
#define fir_switch _Bool flag = 1; {
#define or_if(...) } if (__VA_ARGS__) { flag = 0;
#define otherwise } if (!flag)
Then Fir can write :
fir_switch
or_if (x % 2 == 0) printf("\n divides by 2");
or_if (x % 3 == 0) printf("\n divides by 3");
otherwise printf("\n does not divide by 2 or 3");
I haven't tested the defines, and I think it is a terrible idea (it
should at least be called "and_if"), but it comes very close to the
syntax and semantics Fir appears to want.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 00:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bom51$11u3m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403599 |
David Brown pisze:
> On 26/10/2026 22:50, bartc wrote:
>> On 26/10/2026 21:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 10/26/2026 2:11 PM, bartc wrote:
>>>> On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
>>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>
>>>>>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or'
>>>>>> keyword to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real
>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way
>>>>> becouse there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed
>>>>> combinations generally with sole if 's and else's
>>>>>
>>>>> as was showed here
>>>> There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
>>>>
>>>> * To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
>>>> an existing language whose behaviour is well known
>>>>
>>>> * To highlight the problem areas
>>>>
>>>> For example:
>>>>
>>>> if (f1()) {}
>>>> if (f2()) {}
>>>> ...
>>>> if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
>>>>
>>>> Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
>>>> setting flags.
>>>
>>> So you call f1 and f2, then call if (!f1() && !f2()) {}. So, that is
>>> your choice. Not the fault of C, right?
>>
>> It's not the fault of C. But the C illustrates the logic of this new
>> feature: it must only call the 'else' clause when none of the
>> conditions are true.
>>
>> But if the most direct way of expressing it has this issue, then extra
>> workarounds are needed, for example:
>>
>> flag=1;
>> if f1() {flag=0;...)
>> if f2() {flag=0;...)
>> if (flag) {}
>>
>> (Note the logic here is slightly different: the else block is executed
>> when none of the previous blocks have been entered. Because
>> conditionals may have different values at this point. But we don't
>> know the proper spec.)
>>
>> This actually isn't too bad, but in that case, why do we even need
>> this new feature?
>>
>> My main problem with it is that it is unintuitive and that its
>> use-cases are limited. It's also likely to morph into something else
>> when fir gets bored with it.
>>
>>
>
> #define fir_switch _Bool flag = 1; {
> #define or_if(...) } if (__VA_ARGS__) { flag = 0;
> #define otherwise } if (!flag)
>
> Then Fir can write :
>
> fir_switch
> or_if (x % 2 == 0) printf("\n divides by 2");
> or_if (x % 3 == 0) printf("\n divides by 3");
> otherwise printf("\n does not divide by 2 or 3");
>
> I haven't tested the defines, and I think it is a terrible idea (it
> should at least be called "and_if"), but it comes very close to the
> syntax and semantics Fir appears to want.
>
>
totally no, its not also i want this i just makec conclusion if-else
system is flawed
you may ment it on some ways lik
if {}
or
if {}
else {}
or
case {}
case {}
otherwise {}
in first case you got heneral system of logic operators applied to group
of ifs (coz you may use not olny or but also and or not etc),
in second you got like predefined keywords for "or or or" case
(here in fact otherwise keyword means use or for cases and of 0
evaluate otherwise)
i thing you will nned a general but predefined may be also handy so
eventually language could implement both (such as it has many forms for
loops to increase intentions readability)
flag is a nonsense its liek implementing else with flag
int not = 1;
if (a>2) {not =0; //...}
if(not) {}
;C
NOTE btw this case not only shows flaw in if rlse system but is just
natural fom of switch (both of them i mean "if or if else" and "case
case otherwise"..and imo thsi form is better than switch as its more
natural its grounded -its also shows lacks of switch so it shows both
if-else system is flawed and switch is flawed too
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 00:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bonn2$12f6n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403600 |
fir pisze:
> David Brown pisze:
>> On 26/10/2026 22:50, bartc wrote:
>>> On 26/10/2026 21:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 10/26/2026 2:11 PM, bartc wrote:
>>>>> On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
>>>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or'
>>>>>>> keyword to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a
>>>>>>> real example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way
>>>>>> becouse there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed
>>>>>> combinations generally with sole if 's and else's
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as was showed here
>>>>> There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
>>>>>
>>>>> * To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
>>>>> an existing language whose behaviour is well known
>>>>>
>>>>> * To highlight the problem areas
>>>>>
>>>>> For example:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (f1()) {}
>>>>> if (f2()) {}
>>>>> ...
>>>>> if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
>>>>>
>>>>> Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
>>>>> setting flags.
>>>>
>>>> So you call f1 and f2, then call if (!f1() && !f2()) {}. So, that is
>>>> your choice. Not the fault of C, right?
>>>
>>> It's not the fault of C. But the C illustrates the logic of this new
>>> feature: it must only call the 'else' clause when none of the
>>> conditions are true.
>>>
>>> But if the most direct way of expressing it has this issue, then
>>> extra workarounds are needed, for example:
>>>
>>> flag=1;
>>> if f1() {flag=0;...)
>>> if f2() {flag=0;...)
>>> if (flag) {}
>>>
>>> (Note the logic here is slightly different: the else block is
>>> executed when none of the previous blocks have been entered. Because
>>> conditionals may have different values at this point. But we don't
>>> know the proper spec.)
>>>
>>> This actually isn't too bad, but in that case, why do we even need
>>> this new feature?
>>>
>>> My main problem with it is that it is unintuitive and that its
>>> use-cases are limited. It's also likely to morph into something else
>>> when fir gets bored with it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> #define fir_switch _Bool flag = 1; {
>> #define or_if(...) } if (__VA_ARGS__) { flag = 0;
>> #define otherwise } if (!flag)
>>
>> Then Fir can write :
>>
>> fir_switch
>> or_if (x % 2 == 0) printf("\n divides by 2");
>> or_if (x % 3 == 0) printf("\n divides by 3");
>> otherwise printf("\n does not divide by 2 or 3");
>>
>> I haven't tested the defines, and I think it is a terrible idea (it
>> should at least be called "and_if"), but it comes very close to the
>> syntax and semantics Fir appears to want.
>>
>>
>
> totally no, its not also i want this i just makec conclusion if-else
> system is flawed
>
> you may ment it on some ways lik
>
> if {}
> or
> if {}
> else {}
>
> or
>
> case {}
> case {}
> otherwise {}
>
> in first case you got heneral system of logic operators applied to group
> of ifs (coz you may use not olny or but also and or not etc),
>
> in second you got like predefined keywords for "or or or" case
> (here in fact otherwise keyword means use or for cases and of 0
> evaluate otherwise)
>
> i thing you will nned a general but predefined may be also handy so
> eventually language could implement both (such as it has many forms for
> loops to increase intentions readability)
>
>
> flag is a nonsense its liek implementing else with flag
>
> int not = 1;
>
> if (a>2) {not =0; //...}
> if(not) {}
>
> ;C
>
> NOTE btw this case not only shows flaw in if rlse system but is just
> natural fom of switch (both of them i mean "if or if else" and "case
> case otherwise"..and imo thsi form is better than switch as its more
> natural its grounded -its also shows lacks of switch so it shows both
> if-else system is flawed and switch is flawed too
>
overally switch in c imo is in fact quite like goto not like if
but even if so its not general as it should bcouse if so then you should
also be jumping back
switch n //goto 1 2 3 if other goto default
case 1:
case 2:
case 4:
default:
//if so it should allow amany switches and jumps back
int s =1;
case 2:
switch s
case 1:
int b =2
case 3:
case 4:
switch b
case 5:
such switch i would more like as its much ore logical and right
but if so switch sjould be eventually named goto
(eventually goto() to make difference withh jumping under labe a and
value of (a) (though it also may staj switch for illustration here) and
case may be removed, defaul should be ranemed by other which more fits
the meaning
foo()
{
int s =1;
2:
switch s
1:
int b =2
3:
4:
switch b
other:
}
it illustrates soe things, like this c swich syntax should be
switch s;
1:
2:
3:
other:
break is not a part of it indeed it just is to make jump outside a block
*could eventually be also continue
if so some could at block at free will
switch s;
1: {2:
3: break;
other: continue; }
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 28 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 … 26 27 [28] 29 30 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web