Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #106814 > unrolled thread
| Started by | acidlategamer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-23 09:56 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-03-23 19:02 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 213 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 09:56 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 18:04 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-23 17:07 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 10:36 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 10:42 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 18:52 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 12:54 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 00:02 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 17:16 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 00:32 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 11:57 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 11:23 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 12:53 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-23 19:00 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-23 15:59 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-23 20:40 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-23 22:06 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-23 20:43 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-24 14:09 +1300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-23 21:28 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-24 14:33 +1300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 09:23 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-25 08:39 +1300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 20:40 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 19:48 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 13:32 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 20:42 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-17 06:30 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 19:29 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 10:10 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 09:26 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 13:52 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 10:30 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 14:37 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 12:51 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 18:05 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 15:09 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 12:55 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-24 09:45 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 12:52 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-24 10:10 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 18:48 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-24 14:04 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 19:16 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-24 15:10 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-24 15:17 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-25 00:49 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-24 21:10 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-25 02:37 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-24 21:45 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-03-25 15:58 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-24 12:44 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-24 12:07 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-25 00:54 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-03-25 10:16 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-25 12:32 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-25 15:17 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-25 16:32 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-25 10:15 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-25 14:07 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-25 18:23 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-25 18:48 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 23:22 +0300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-25 20:47 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 15:56 +0300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-26 18:13 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-26 17:03 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-25 21:16 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-03-25 21:28 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-25 19:16 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-26 08:53 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-26 02:39 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2017-03-26 11:54 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-26 22:57 +1300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 08:18 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-26 11:37 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 08:19 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-27 21:53 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-27 16:22 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 08:18 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-27 08:49 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-27 16:57 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 18:19 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-27 17:47 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-27 09:27 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-27 17:56 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-04-01 12:42 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-27 09:36 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-27 17:51 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-27 13:59 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-27 19:00 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-27 15:13 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-27 20:05 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-27 13:14 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-27 21:28 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-27 16:21 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-28 13:44 +1300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 08:39 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-03 17:36 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-03 14:02 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-14 11:24 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-04-14 18:39 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-14 14:38 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-22 21:06 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-04-23 17:38 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2017-04-14 13:54 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-14 14:36 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-16 19:08 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-26 17:11 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 08:23 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-27 10:27 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 10:22 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-27 15:01 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 18:19 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-27 12:37 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-27 15:40 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-27 21:28 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 22:27 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-27 23:37 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 08:33 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-28 11:21 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-28 15:38 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jm.bourguet@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 09:03 -0700
Re: Readabilty of "3 == x" (was: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-28 09:20 -0700
Re: Readabilty of "3 == x" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 18:55 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 18:49 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-28 14:53 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-28 15:19 -0500
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-02 12:49 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-04-03 17:19 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-04-03 21:44 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-04-03 15:05 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-04-04 01:19 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-04 00:49 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-04-03 18:22 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-04-04 06:38 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-29 00:16 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-29 00:26 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 12:34 +0300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 13:28 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-28 07:04 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 14:38 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-28 10:55 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jadill33@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 07:27 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-28 07:58 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 16:13 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 18:49 +0300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-28 09:15 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 18:53 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-28 18:12 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-28 11:51 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 19:59 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 23:11 +0300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 17:20 +0300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-01 08:58 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 18:41 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-01 11:37 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 22:43 +0300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-03 08:47 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 07:58 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-25 19:35 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-03-25 21:37 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-26 08:39 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-03-25 21:21 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-25 16:54 -0500
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-03-25 22:32 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-26 13:46 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-03 17:39 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-03 11:42 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-03 12:10 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-03 15:22 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-05 11:01 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-26 08:45 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-26 02:35 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-26 17:19 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 08:15 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 15:12 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-25 08:41 +1300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-24 16:27 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-24 21:36 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 20:44 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-25 14:46 +1300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-24 11:24 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-24 13:52 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 13:55 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 10:31 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 14:39 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 12:54 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2017-03-23 21:56 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-23 15:18 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 16:39 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-23 20:42 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 16:33 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-23 20:45 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 10:01 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 09:27 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 13:53 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 10:32 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 14:42 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 12:56 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-24 08:45 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2017-03-23 21:14 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 11:52 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 11:03 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 11:14 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 12:41 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-23 11:48 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 11:59 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-23 12:35 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 12:48 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-23 13:24 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-23 20:46 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2017-03-23 19:02 -0700
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 11:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <58f0acea.4870187@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #107683 |
"James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote: > On 04/03/2017 01:36 PM, Richard Bos wrote: > > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > >> On 26/03/17 10:39, Keith Thompson wrote: > > > >>> Can we start by acknowledging that I'm not just making that up, > >>> and that a lot of people share the same feeling? > >> > >> Yes, but let's be clear that it's a /feeling/. It doesn't seem to have > >> any logical grounds whatsoever. > > > > Of course not. We were raised - and read our code - in English (or > > Dutch), not Lojban. > > That's funny. It would never have occurred to me to try to read my C > code in any language other than C, and I've never done so. So... how _do_ you read "if (x == 3)", then? And don't say 'as "if (x == 3)"', because I have yet to encounter anyone capable of pronouncing a parenthesis or equals sign directly. I can imagine reading code directly if you are, as noted elsethread, you are a visual thinker. The picture in your mind might then not be much different from the picture on your screen. But if, as I am, you are an auditory thinker, you _have_ to think it out loud, and your brain _has_ to pronounce it to you. So, are you an auditory or a visual thinker, and if auditory, _what do you hear_ when you read "if (x == 3)"? One thing is certain, it's not "if (x == 3)", because those aren't sounds. This is a serious philosophical question, by the way. How can we convey, to others, what we think? At best we can describe it. We can't transfer it directly, and if two people think in different ways, there may not even be a reliable way to describe it clearly. One fact in this field has been known for a long time: some people think in images, and some in sounds; and they find it hard to imagine how the other half thinks. I strongly suspect that this has a fundamental influence on how each half writes code, as well. > because my second computer language was APL, for which any such attempt > would be doomed to failure. C was my fourth or fifth computer language. > I learned COBOL around the same time, and I've always thought that > trying to define a computer language so that it could be easily read in > English was one of the most ridiculous concepts I'd ever seen. It's not a matter of defining it that way - it's a matter, for some of us, of the _necessity_ of _reading_ it that way. I literally cannot read "if (x == 3)" as "if (x == 3)", I have to read it either as "if ex equals three" or as "if opening parenthesis lower case letter ex double equals sign three closing parenthesis". I think even you and Richard H. will agree that the former option is clearer; and I hope you will accept that _I have no simpler option_. (And yes, I find APL impossible unless I painstakingly deconstruct each line; actually, usually even then. I certainly cannot read it 'directly' or 'in APL'.) Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 18:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ocr1be$7ri$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108122 |
On 14/04/17 12:24, Richard Bos wrote: > "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 04/03/2017 01:36 PM, Richard Bos wrote: >>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >>>> On 26/03/17 10:39, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> >>>>> Can we start by acknowledging that I'm not just making that up, >>>>> and that a lot of people share the same feeling? >>>> >>>> Yes, but let's be clear that it's a /feeling/. It doesn't seem to have >>>> any logical grounds whatsoever. >>> >>> Of course not. We were raised - and read our code - in English (or >>> Dutch), not Lojban. >> >> That's funny. It would never have occurred to me to try to read my C >> code in any language other than C, and I've never done so. > > So... how _do_ you read "if (x == 3)", then? > > And don't say 'as "if (x == 3)"', because I have yet to encounter anyone > capable of pronouncing a parenthesis or equals sign directly. There are several choices. You say "pronouncing", so you seem to be talking about reading out loud. When I read C out loud, I read it /differently/. When I read it silently, it is a very different matter. Out loud, I might say any of these: * if ecks is equal to three * if ecks equals equals three * if ecks and three have the same value Of these, I prefer the last, because it is closest to the original C. But they are all flawed, because they are all merely translations. In my head, I read it in C. I can't explain to you how exactly I do that, because it is partly visual. For example, the == conjures up in my mind a pan balance, with x on one pan and 3 on the other. Are the pans level? And it really doesn't matter which item is on which pan because I could go round to the other side of the balance and see them the other way around and it would make no difference to whether the scales were level. > I can imagine reading code directly if you are, as noted elsethread, you > are a visual thinker. I don't think it's as simple as that. I'm partly a visual thinker, but mostly (when programming in C) I'm a /C/ thinker. I don't think C code in English. I think it in C. When I play guitar, my fingers don't think in English. They think in music. When I compose music, I don't think in English. I think in lilypond. (Ribbet!) <snip> > It's not a matter of defining it that way - it's a matter, for some of > us, of the _necessity_ of _reading_ it that way. I literally cannot read > "if (x == 3)" as "if (x == 3)", I have to read it either as "if ex > equals three" or as "if opening parenthesis lower case letter ex double > equals sign three closing parenthesis". I think even you and Richard H. > will agree that the former option is clearer; and I hope you will accept > that _I have no simpler option_. "Simple" is a notoriously complicated concept, but you may well be right if you're reading it out loud. But when just reading it, why not read it like this: == / \ x 3 and envisage the == as being engraved on a rotating disc (i.e. the only thing about the positioning of x and 3 in relation to each other is whether one outweighs the other. > (And yes, I find APL impossible unless I painstakingly deconstruct each > line; actually, usually even then. I certainly cannot read it 'directly' > or 'in APL'.) But APL is write-only, surely? -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 14:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ocr4pp$k58$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108137 |
On 04/14/2017 01:39 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 14/04/17 12:24, Richard Bos wrote: ... >> (And yes, I find APL impossible unless I painstakingly deconstruct each >> line; actually, usually even then. I certainly cannot read it 'directly' >> or 'in APL'.) > > But APL is write-only, surely? I wrote some APL code in the 1970s. Twenty years later, having made no use of APL in the interim, I found old printouts of that code. I found it perfectly understandable, though I would have had to review the language before writing any new code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-22 21:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <58fbc45f.46711750@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #108137 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > On 14/04/17 12:24, Richard Bos wrote: > > "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote: > > > >> That's funny. It would never have occurred to me to try to read my C > >> code in any language other than C, and I've never done so. > > > > So... how _do_ you read "if (x == 3)", then? > > > > And don't say 'as "if (x == 3)"', because I have yet to encounter anyone > > capable of pronouncing a parenthesis or equals sign directly. > > There are several choices. You say "pronouncing", so you seem to be > talking about reading out loud. Well, no. And yet yes. Not out loud, but in-my-head-out-loud. > In my head, I read it in C. I can't explain to you how exactly I do > that, because it is partly visual. For example, the == conjures up in my > mind a pan balance, with x on one pan and 3 on the other. See, I can't do that. > When I play guitar, my fingers don't think in English. They think in music. > > When I compose music, I don't think in English. I think in lilypond. > (Ribbet!) When I used to play the cornet, my fingers didn't think at all. They _did_, while my brain thought the sounds of the music. I've never composed seriously, but when I (extremely rarely) write down music, I think in music - in the sounds I write down. I never think in _notation_, only in sound. > > It's not a matter of defining it that way - it's a matter, for some of > > us, of the _necessity_ of _reading_ it that way. I literally cannot read > > "if (x == 3)" as "if (x == 3)", I have to read it either as "if ex > > equals three" or as "if opening parenthesis lower case letter ex double > > equals sign three closing parenthesis". I think even you and Richard H. > > will agree that the former option is clearer; and I hope you will accept > > that _I have no simpler option_. > > "Simple" is a notoriously complicated concept, but you may well be right > if you're reading it out loud. But when just reading it, why not read it > like this: > > == > / \ > x 3 Because that means nothing to me. What does that mean, "read it like a diagram"? That doesn't happen in my head. There is no way I can transfer that concept to my brain. I can _see_ it, and I can work with it as long as it actually is in front of my eyes; but I can't think it, I can't transfer it to _behind_ my eyes. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 17:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <odil3i$i4k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108350 |
On 22/04/17 22:06, Richard Bos wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > >> On 14/04/17 12:24, Richard Bos wrote: >>> "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>>> That's funny. It would never have occurred to me to try to read my C >>>> code in any language other than C, and I've never done so. >>> >>> So... how _do_ you read "if (x == 3)", then? >>> >>> And don't say 'as "if (x == 3)"', because I have yet to encounter anyone >>> capable of pronouncing a parenthesis or equals sign directly. >> >> There are several choices. You say "pronouncing", so you seem to be >> talking about reading out loud. > > Well, no. And yet yes. Not out loud, but in-my-head-out-loud. You see, I /don't/ do that. When I'm reading it audibly (e.g. discussing a code fragment with another programmer, perhaps over the telephone or maybe while walking along together /sans/ electronics), I'm stuck with an English approximation. When I'm reading the code in my head, it's mostly pictures. >> In my head, I read it in C. This turns out to be a poor explanation of what I meant! It's partly true, but it doesn't tell the whole story. (See below for a better explanation.) >> I can't explain to you how exactly I do >> that, because it is partly visual. For example, the == conjures up in my >> mind a pan balance, with x on one pan and 3 on the other. > > See, I can't do that. Several techniques exist for removing the hide of a feline quadruped. >> When I play guitar, my fingers don't think in English. They think in music. >> >> When I compose music, I don't think in English. I think in lilypond. >> (Ribbet!) > > When I used to play the cornet, my fingers didn't think at all. They > _did_, while my brain thought the sounds of the music. That, too, kind of describes my instrument-playing - of course I know that my fingers don't actually do any thinking, any more than they do when, as now, I'm typing on the keyboard. It just /seems/ that way. > I've never > composed seriously, but when I (extremely rarely) write down music, I > think in music - in the sounds I write down. I never think in > _notation_, only in sound. Yeah, that's actually quite a good explanation of how I think about C programs (and it suggests to me that you are probably a better musician than me, which wouldn't be that difficult). You see, when I read a program, I'm thinking mostly about the program, not so much the C that I use to notate it. I can take the C "as read", so to speak, although undoubtedly there's a certain amount of syntax-checking and other rule validation going on in my head. But when I see ==, I think "test for balance" (not those words, you understand, but that /concept/), and the things either side are operands that appear in some order, and I know full well that it doesn't matter what order that is, and therefore I pay no attention to the order. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 13:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ocr26f$b7v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108122 |
On 4/14/2017 7:24 AM, Richard Bos wrote: > "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote: [...] >> That's funny. It would never have occurred to me to try to read my C >> code in any language other than C, and I've never done so. > > So... how _do_ you read "if (x == 3)", then? > > And don't say 'as "if (x == 3)"', because I have yet to encounter anyone > capable of pronouncing a parenthesis or equals sign directly. > > I can imagine reading code directly if you are, as noted elsethread, you > are a visual thinker. The picture in your mind might then not be much > different from the picture on your screen. But if, as I am, you are an > auditory thinker, you _have_ to think it out loud, and your brain _has_ > to pronounce it to you. > > So, are you an auditory or a visual thinker, and if auditory, _what do > you hear_ when you read "if (x == 3)"? One thing is certain, it's not > "if (x == 3)", because those aren't sounds. [...] I learn things best visually, but internally, I still "hear" what I'm reading. So, although I immediately see the meaning of "if(x==3)", I still hear "if x equals 3, then...". -- Kenneth Brody
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 14:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ocr4kt$k58$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108122 |
On 04/14/2017 07:24 AM, Richard Bos wrote: > "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 04/03/2017 01:36 PM, Richard Bos wrote: ... >>> Of course not. We were raised - and read our code - in English (or >>> Dutch), not Lojban. >> >> That's funny. It would never have occurred to me to try to read my C >> code in any language other than C, and I've never done so. > > So... how _do_ you read "if (x == 3)", then? Soundlessly. > And don't say 'as "if (x == 3)"', because I have yet to encounter anyone > capable of pronouncing a parenthesis or equals sign directly. > > I can imagine reading code directly if you are, as noted elsethread, you > are a visual thinker. The picture in your mind might then not be much > different from the picture on your screen. But if, as I am, you are an > auditory thinker, you _have_ to think it out loud, and your brain _has_ > to pronounce it to you. I translate visual symbols into abstract representations of the meanings of those symbols, without at any point in the process thinking about how I would vocalize those symbols. > So, are you an auditory or a visual thinker, and if auditory, _what do > you hear_ when you read "if (x == 3)"? One thing is certain, it's not > "if (x == 3)", because those aren't sounds. > > > This is a serious philosophical question, by the way. How can we convey, > to others, what we think? At best we can describe it. We can't transfer > it directly, and if two people think in different ways, there may not > even be a reliable way to describe it clearly. If I need to describe the code to someone else, then and only then do I translate it into English words. If I need to describe the code itself, the words I choose will usually describe the symbols that make up the code, rather than describing their meaning: "If left-paren x equal-equal 3 right-paren". If I'm trying to describe the purpose of the code, there's usually no particularly tight connection between my description and how the code is written: "Compare x with 3 - if they are equal, do this, otherwise, do that".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-16 19:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn60i3946j.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #107683 |
"James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> [...] My most
> recent attempt at learning a computer language was Haskal, but I
> didn't have enough time to spend on that project to get past the
> initial stage of utter confusion.
(I am guessing you mean Haskell there rather than Haskal.)
If you find Haskell confusing, you might try one of the ML-family
of languages as an intermediate step.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_%28programming_language%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_ML
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCaml
I have programmed in the original ML and also in the more recent
OCaml. The different choices are not interchangeable but the
core ideas are the same so any one of the above should provide
a good introduction - you might choose based on which one is
easiest to get installed on your own machine(s).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 17:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ob8lhg$c8m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107093 |
On 26/03/17 09:53, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 25/03/17 21:28, Richard Bos wrote: >> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 25/03/17 14:17, David Brown wrote: >> >>>> Writing "if (3 == x)" has a benefit /only/ if you have poor tools (or >>>> don't know how to use them correctly) which are unable to warn you if >>>> you write "if (x = 3)". >>> >>> Writing if(3 == x) does indeed have at least that benefit. Writing if(x >>> == 3) has no commensurate benefit. >> >> Indeed; it has, instead, the incummensurately greater benefit of being >> easy to read by people who are not robots or little green men. > > I value readability very highly, but I do assume that the reader has a > basic familiarity with the language. > > And obviously you do. And so do the others who have expressed an opinion > on this matter in this thread. > > Anyone who is bright enough to understand that addition is commutative > (and thus that x + y gives the same result as y + x) is also bright > enough to understand that comparison for equality is commutative (and > thus that x == y gives the same results as y == x). People usually know that "n + 1" and "1 + n" are the same - yet there is a strong tendency to write the former variant. It is seen as the "more natural" version. > > Anyone who is not bright enough to understand commutativity needs to be > looking at other careers. > > Everybody in this thread who has expressed an opinion /is/ bright enough > to understand commutativity, so I really, truly don't see why they are > so upset by 3 == x. Do these same people find it difficult to read B == x? > It is entirely reasonable to expect a C programmer to understand the meaning of "if (3 == x)". But I think it is entirely reasonable to expect a programmer, at least one with English as their native language, to find "if (x == 3)" to be more natural. Therefore, this version has greater "readability" and is the preferred way to write it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 08:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <obaefs$683$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107106 |
On 26/03/17 16:11, David Brown wrote: > On 26/03/17 09:53, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 25/03/17 21:28, Richard Bos wrote: >>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On 25/03/17 14:17, David Brown wrote: >>> >>>>> Writing "if (3 == x)" has a benefit /only/ if you have poor tools (or >>>>> don't know how to use them correctly) which are unable to warn you if >>>>> you write "if (x = 3)". >>>> >>>> Writing if(3 == x) does indeed have at least that benefit. Writing if(x >>>> == 3) has no commensurate benefit. >>> >>> Indeed; it has, instead, the incummensurately greater benefit of being >>> easy to read by people who are not robots or little green men. >> >> I value readability very highly, but I do assume that the reader has a >> basic familiarity with the language. >> >> And obviously you do. And so do the others who have expressed an opinion >> on this matter in this thread. >> >> Anyone who is bright enough to understand that addition is commutative >> (and thus that x + y gives the same result as y + x) is also bright >> enough to understand that comparison for equality is commutative (and >> thus that x == y gives the same results as y == x). > > People usually know that "n + 1" and "1 + n" are the same - yet there is > a strong tendency to write the former variant. It is seen as the "more > natural" version. I'd accept "David, and some others here, see it as the more natural version". I don't see any natural difference between them. I do see a lexicographical difference (in that the ordering is different), but that's all. >> Anyone who is not bright enough to understand commutativity needs to be >> looking at other careers. >> >> Everybody in this thread who has expressed an opinion /is/ bright enough >> to understand commutativity, so I really, truly don't see why they are >> so upset by 3 == x. Do these same people find it difficult to read B >> == x? >> > > It is entirely reasonable to expect a C programmer to understand the > meaning of "if (3 == x)". Yes. > But I think it is entirely reasonable to > expect a programmer, at least one with English as their native language, > to find "if (x == 3)" to be more natural. There we must differ. > Therefore, this version has > greater "readability" and is the preferred way to write it. Which of these is easier? if(x == y) if(y == x) -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 10:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <obai79$h71$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107141 |
On 27/03/17 09:23, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 26/03/17 16:11, David Brown wrote: >> On 26/03/17 09:53, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 25/03/17 21:28, Richard Bos wrote: >>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 25/03/17 14:17, David Brown wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Writing "if (3 == x)" has a benefit /only/ if you have poor tools (or >>>>>> don't know how to use them correctly) which are unable to warn you if >>>>>> you write "if (x = 3)". >>>>> >>>>> Writing if(3 == x) does indeed have at least that benefit. Writing >>>>> if(x >>>>> == 3) has no commensurate benefit. >>>> >>>> Indeed; it has, instead, the incummensurately greater benefit of being >>>> easy to read by people who are not robots or little green men. >>> >>> I value readability very highly, but I do assume that the reader has a >>> basic familiarity with the language. >>> >>> And obviously you do. And so do the others who have expressed an opinion >>> on this matter in this thread. >>> >>> Anyone who is bright enough to understand that addition is commutative >>> (and thus that x + y gives the same result as y + x) is also bright >>> enough to understand that comparison for equality is commutative (and >>> thus that x == y gives the same results as y == x). >> >> People usually know that "n + 1" and "1 + n" are the same - yet there is >> a strong tendency to write the former variant. It is seen as the "more >> natural" version. > > I'd accept "David, and some others here, see it as the more natural > version". I don't see any natural difference between them. I do see a > lexicographical difference (in that the ordering is different), but > that's all. > >>> Anyone who is not bright enough to understand commutativity needs to be >>> looking at other careers. >>> >>> Everybody in this thread who has expressed an opinion /is/ bright enough >>> to understand commutativity, so I really, truly don't see why they are >>> so upset by 3 == x. Do these same people find it difficult to read B >>> == x? >>> >> >> It is entirely reasonable to expect a C programmer to understand the >> meaning of "if (3 == x)". > > Yes. > >> But I think it is entirely reasonable to >> expect a programmer, at least one with English as their native language, >> to find "if (x == 3)" to be more natural. > > There we must differ. I think we have established that there are programmers who find "if (x == 3)" to be more natural than "if (3 == x)". Several contributors to this thread are in that category. We have also established that there are programmers who find the two versions equally natural (or equally unnatural) - such as yourself. (Like any such categorisation, this is ignoring grey areas of people who find one version just a little nicer than the other, or sometimes nicer than the other, etc.) So whether or not it is "entirely reasonable to expect a programmer" to fall into the first category, depends on the distribution of programmers between these categories. And since I suspect neither of us has any reasonable statistical basis of determining such distribution, we must agree to disagree. > >> Therefore, this version has >> greater "readability" and is the preferred way to write it. > > Which of these is easier? > > if(x == y) > if(y == x) > Neither. I always put a space after "if" :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 10:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <obalec$rg2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107145 |
On 27/03/17 09:27, David Brown wrote: > On 27/03/17 09:23, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 26/03/17 16:11, David Brown wrote: <snip> >>> >>> It is entirely reasonable to expect a C programmer to understand the >>> meaning of "if (3 == x)". >> >> Yes. >> >>> But I think it is entirely reasonable to >>> expect a programmer, at least one with English as their native language, >>> to find "if (x == 3)" to be more natural. >> >> There we must differ. > > I think we have established that there are programmers who find "if (x > == 3)" to be more natural than "if (3 == x)". Several contributors to > this thread are in that category. Agreed. That isn't quite the same thing as /expecting/ programmers to find the one to be more natural than the other. > We have also established that there are programmers who find the two > versions equally natural (or equally unnatural) - such as yourself. Yes. This may be because I am reading the code as C, not as English. > (Like any such categorisation, this is ignoring grey areas of people who > find one version just a little nicer than the other, or sometimes nicer > than the other, etc.) Yes, and perhaps that grey area is very small, or perhaps it's very large. As far as I'm aware, we lack data on that. > So whether or not it is "entirely reasonable to expect a programmer" to > fall into the first category, depends on the distribution of programmers > between these categories. Yes. > And since I suspect neither of us has any reasonable statistical basis > of determining such distribution, we must agree to disagree. Right. :-) >>> Therefore, this version has >>> greater "readability" and is the preferred way to write it. >> >> Which of these is easier? >> >> if(x == y) >> if(y == x) >> > > Neither. Precisely my point. > I always put a space after "if" :-) ...and I don't. :-) -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 15:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <GP9CA.121449$Ip6.20100@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #107141 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >On 26/03/17 16:11, David Brown wrote: >> On 26/03/17 09:53, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 25/03/17 21:28, Richard Bos wrote: >>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 25/03/17 14:17, David Brown wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Writing "if (3 == x)" has a benefit /only/ if you have poor tools (or >>>>>> don't know how to use them correctly) which are unable to warn you if >>>>>> you write "if (x = 3)". >>>>> >>>>> Writing if(3 == x) does indeed have at least that benefit. Writing if(x >>>>> == 3) has no commensurate benefit. >>>> >>>> Indeed; it has, instead, the incummensurately greater benefit of being >>>> easy to read by people who are not robots or little green men. >>> >>> I value readability very highly, but I do assume that the reader has a >>> basic familiarity with the language. >>> >>> And obviously you do. And so do the others who have expressed an opinion >>> on this matter in this thread. >>> >>> Anyone who is bright enough to understand that addition is commutative >>> (and thus that x + y gives the same result as y + x) is also bright >>> enough to understand that comparison for equality is commutative (and >>> thus that x == y gives the same results as y == x). >> >> People usually know that "n + 1" and "1 + n" are the same - yet there is >> a strong tendency to write the former variant. It is seen as the "more >> natural" version. > >I'd accept "David, and some others here, see it as the more natural >version". I don't see any natural difference between them. I do see a >lexicographical difference (in that the ordering is different), but >that's all. > >>> Anyone who is not bright enough to understand commutativity needs to be >>> looking at other careers. >>> >>> Everybody in this thread who has expressed an opinion /is/ bright enough >>> to understand commutativity, so I really, truly don't see why they are >>> so upset by 3 == x. Do these same people find it difficult to read B >>> == x? >>> >> >> It is entirely reasonable to expect a C programmer to understand the >> meaning of "if (3 == x)". > >Yes. > >> But I think it is entirely reasonable to >> expect a programmer, at least one with English as their native language, >> to find "if (x == 3)" to be more natural. > >There we must differ. > >> Therefore, this version has >> greater "readability" and is the preferred way to write it. > >Which of these is easier? > >if(x == y) >if(y == x) Given that neither expression includes an integer constant, methink you're moving the goalposts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 18:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <obbhee$27u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107156 |
On 27/03/17 16:01, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: <snip> >> Which of these is easier? >> >> if(x == y) >> if(y == x) > > Given that neither expression includes an integer constant, > methink you're moving the goalposts. I'd be very surprised to hear that people find integer constants harder to read than other identifiers. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 12:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1002c15f-390b-4933-a3a7-b49471b3efaf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #107181 |
On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 12:20:06 PM UTC-5, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 27/03/17 16:01, Scott Lurndal wrote: > > Richard Heathfield writes: > >> Which of these is easier? > >> > >> if(x == y) > >> if(y == x) > > > > Given that neither expression includes an integer constant, > > methink you're moving the goalposts. > > I'd be very surprised to hear that people find integer constants harder > to read than other identifiers. Normal usage with comparison operators is that if one of the values will be changed within a loop or other context where the other won't be, the one which will be changed within that loop or context will be on the left. Given (x==y) or (y==x) with no other information, it's impossible to tell whether one might be changed within a context where the other won't, but given (x==3) or (3==x) I think it's pretty easy to say that it's impossible for the 3 to be changed in any context where the x isn't, but the x should be changed in a context where the 3 isn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 15:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ad06a24e-3734-17c8-16c7-efdbc0051881@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #107181 |
On 03/27/2017 03:35 PM, Stefan Ram wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> I'd be very surprised to hear that people find integer constants harder >> to read than other identifiers. > > You must have had something else in mind, but the common > wisdom is that an integer constant, such as > > 243 > > , is a "magic value", no one knows where it's "coming from", > and so it is nearly "unreadable", while an identifier such as No, it's not unreadable. In fact, it's easy to read. What it is, is mysterious - not a good feature to have in maintainable code (mystery is a very desireable feature to have in malware, however).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 21:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <874lye5usl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #107181 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 27/03/17 16:01, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > > <snip> > >>> Which of these is easier? >>> >>> if(x == y) >>> if(y == x) >> >> Given that neither expression includes an integer constant, >> methink you're moving the goalposts. > > I'd be very surprised to hear that people find integer constants > harder to read than other identifiers. Having moved the goalposts you are now begging the question! -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 22:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <obbvu0$og1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107210 |
On 27/03/17 21:28, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > >> On 27/03/17 16:01, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> >> <snip> >> >>>> Which of these is easier? >>>> >>>> if(x == y) >>>> if(y == x) >>> >>> Given that neither expression includes an integer constant, >>> methink you're moving the goalposts. >> >> I'd be very surprised to hear that people find integer constants >> harder to read than other identifiers. > > Having moved the goalposts you are now begging the question! No, I don't think so (on either charge). People aren't saying "3" is hard to read. They are saying "3==x" is harder to read than "x==3". What I'm curious to know is /why/. To that end, I asked whether people have more trouble reading x==y than y==x (or indeed more trouble reading y==x than x==y). If so, why? And if not, then why would they have more trouble reading 3==x than x==3? -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 23:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <871stixs6f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #107217 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 27/03/17 21:28, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> >>> On 27/03/17 16:01, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>>> Which of these is easier? >>>>> >>>>> if(x == y) >>>>> if(y == x) >>>> >>>> Given that neither expression includes an integer constant, >>>> methink you're moving the goalposts. >>> >>> I'd be very surprised to hear that people find integer constants >>> harder to read than other identifiers. >> >> Having moved the goalposts you are now begging the question! > > No, I don't think so (on either charge). People aren't saying "3" is > hard to read. Then I wonder why you brought it up. I appears that you don't think the readability of 3 vs y is of any consequence yet you mention it. Why? > They are saying "3==x" is harder to read than > "x==3". What I'm curious to know is /why/. > > To that end, I asked whether people have more trouble reading x==y > than y==x (or indeed more trouble reading y==x than x==y). If so, why? > And if not, then why would they have more trouble reading 3==x than > x==3? Does the readability of "3" vs "y" have anything to do with either question? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 08:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <obd3f3$e3g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107226 |
On 27/03/17 23:37, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > >> On 27/03/17 21:28, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >>> >>>> On 27/03/17 16:01, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>>> Which of these is easier? >>>>>> >>>>>> if(x == y) >>>>>> if(y == x) >>>>> >>>>> Given that neither expression includes an integer constant, >>>>> methink you're moving the goalposts. >>>> >>>> I'd be very surprised to hear that people find integer constants >>>> harder to read than other identifiers. >>> >>> Having moved the goalposts you are now begging the question! >> >> No, I don't think so (on either charge). People aren't saying "3" is >> hard to read. > > Then I wonder why you brought it up. I didn't. I brought up the question of whether x==y or y==x is harder to read, and someone told me that neither included an integer constant. Since I wasn't asking (at that time) about integer constants, this surprised me, as I didn't think that the difficulty or otherwise of reading integer constants was at issue. Now you seem to be suggesting that I think otherwise and that I introduced the subject. I don't see why. The question I asked was which (if any) of x==y and y==x was easier to read, and no integer constants appear in that question. > I appears that you don't think the > readability of 3 vs y is of any consequence yet you mention it. Why? I brought up the question of whether x==y or y==x is harder to read, and someone told me that neither included an integer constant. Since I wasn't asking (at that time) about integer constants, this surprised me, as I didn't think that the difficulty or otherwise of reading integer constants was at issue. Now you seem to be suggesting that I think otherwise and that I introduced the subject. I don't see why. The question I asked was which (if any) of x==y and y==x was easier to read, and no integer constants appear in that question. >> They are saying "3==x" is harder to read than >> "x==3". What I'm curious to know is /why/. >> >> To that end, I asked whether people have more trouble reading x==y >> than y==x (or indeed more trouble reading y==x than x==y). If so, why? >> And if not, then why would they have more trouble reading 3==x than >> x==3? > > Does the readability of "3" vs "y" have anything to do with either > question? I don't know yet. I'm still at the "wading through pointless objections" stage of the argument. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web