Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #54051 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-12-07 14:48 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-12-12 02:24 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 299 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-07 14:48 -0800
Re: which one is better Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-07 16:14 -0800
Re: which one is better glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-08 01:28 +0000
Re: which one is better Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-07 19:01 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-08 00:32 -0800
Re: which one is better Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-08 01:40 -0800
which one is better "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2014-12-07 19:00 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-08 00:35 -0800
Re: which one is better gordonb.7ngx1@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2014-12-16 06:28 -0600
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-16 13:08 +0000
Re: which one is better Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-12-16 23:49 -0500
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-16 05:15 -0800
Re: which one is better gordonb.9nipv@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2014-12-17 02:22 -0600
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-17 01:21 -0800
Re: which one is better Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-18 02:21 -0600
Re: which one is better Vincenzo Mercuri <nomail@yahoo.it> - 2014-12-11 12:34 +0100
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 05:33 -0800
Re: which one is better Vincenzo Mercuri <nomail@yahoo.it> - 2014-12-11 16:27 +0100
Re: which one is better gordonb.cx8yb@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2014-12-16 06:58 -0600
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-11 15:05 +0000
Re: which one is better Vincenzo Mercuri <nomail@yahoo.it> - 2014-12-11 16:31 +0100
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-11 17:11 +0000
Re: which one is better Vincenzo Mercuri <nomail@yahoo.it> - 2014-12-11 18:44 +0100
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 10:19 -0800
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-11 20:07 +0000
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-11 20:52 +0000
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-11 22:10 +0000
Re: which one is better Vincenzo Mercuri <nomail@yahoo.it> - 2014-12-11 22:57 +0100
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-11 15:34 +0000
Re: which one is better Vincenzo Mercuri <nomail@yahoo.it> - 2014-12-11 16:45 +0100
Re: which one is better "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 07:56 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-11 16:08 +0000
Re: which one is better Vincenzo Mercuri <nomail@yahoo.it> - 2014-12-11 17:19 +0100
Re: which one is better "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 08:35 -0800
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-11 17:09 +0000
Re: which one is better "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 09:58 -0800
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-11 20:13 +0000
Re: which one is better glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-11 20:18 +0000
Re: which one is better rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-11 12:57 -0800
Re: which one is better Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-12 01:55 -0600
Re: which one is better Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2014-12-12 03:03 -0500
Re: which one is better Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-12 02:30 -0600
Re: which one is better glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-14 04:03 +0000
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-11 17:04 +0000
Re: which one is better "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 08:53 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-11 17:49 +0000
Re: which one is better "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 10:18 -0800
Re: which one is better "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 10:43 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 11:50 -0800
Re: which one is better John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 12:10 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-11 20:30 +0000
Re: which one is better John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 13:19 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 13:32 -0800
Re: which one is better gordonb.ygnb6@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2014-12-16 08:00 -0600
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-16 06:23 -0800
Re: which one is better gordonb.ne8xc@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2014-12-17 02:38 -0600
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-17 01:29 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-17 02:31 -0800
Re: which one is better gordonb.dwhy1@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2014-12-19 02:50 -0600
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-19 05:03 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-17 01:48 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-17 01:57 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-17 02:21 -0800
Re: which one is better Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2014-12-18 01:53 +0200
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 00:42 -0800
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-18 11:33 +0100
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 02:46 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 03:00 -0800
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-18 12:35 +0100
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 03:53 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-18 12:10 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 04:45 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 04:55 -0800
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-18 14:50 +0100
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 07:16 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 07:36 -0800
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-18 16:42 +0100
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 07:52 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-18 18:06 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 03:58 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 04:09 -0800
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-18 14:51 +0100
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-18 08:24 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 08:29 -0800
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-18 10:56 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-18 12:08 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 04:15 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-18 12:55 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 05:12 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-18 13:19 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 05:41 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-18 13:49 +0000
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-18 13:09 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 05:22 -0800
Re: which one is better Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2014-12-23 12:32 +0200
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-24 02:10 -0800
Re: which one is better John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 13:35 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-11 22:08 +0000
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-11 22:00 +0000
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-11 22:08 +0000
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-11 15:38 -0800
Re: which one is better glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-12 02:29 +0000
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-11 20:26 +0000
Re: which one is better rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-11 12:56 -0800
Re: which one is better Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-12 02:05 -0600
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 00:44 -0800
Re: which one is better Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-18 02:24 -0600
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-11 20:17 +0000
Re: which one is better Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2014-12-18 01:14 +0200
Re: which one is better "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 06:15 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 06:25 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-11 15:00 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 07:28 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 07:42 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 08:01 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 08:37 -0800
Re: which one is better Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2014-12-14 05:46 +0000
Re: which one is better John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 08:14 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 08:26 -0800
Re: which one is better "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 08:32 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-11 16:45 +0000
Re: which one is better glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-12 02:35 +0000
Re: which one is better rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-11 20:36 -0800
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-12 05:14 +0000
Re: which one is better rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-12 06:20 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 09:23 +0000
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-12 10:22 +0000
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 10:43 +0000
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-12 11:11 +0000
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 11:43 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 04:47 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 12:51 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 05:10 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 13:25 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 05:57 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 14:15 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 06:49 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 14:51 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 06:57 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-13 01:50 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-13 02:15 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 05:36 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-12 13:51 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 06:00 -0800
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-12 14:56 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 07:08 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 07:32 -0800
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-12 15:36 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 08:26 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 10:27 -0800
Re: which one is better Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-12 07:46 -0800
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-15 09:57 +0100
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-15 09:54 +0100
Re: which one is better John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 10:03 -0800
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-12 11:14 +0000
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-12 11:46 +0000
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-12 12:05 +0000
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-12 12:27 +0000
Re: which one is better Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2014-12-18 02:11 +0200
Re: which one is better glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-14 04:15 +0000
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-13 21:19 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-12-12 22:51 -0500
Re: which one is better gordonb.3w2i6@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2014-12-16 09:09 -0600
Re: which one is better Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2014-12-11 16:12 -0600
Re: which one is better rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-11 14:29 -0800
Re: which one is better Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2014-12-11 17:32 -0600
Re: which one is better rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-11 15:39 -0800
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-11 23:55 +0000
Re: which one is better rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-11 15:57 -0800
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-12 00:29 +0000
Re: which one is better rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-11 16:52 -0800
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-12 10:47 +0000
Re: which one is better rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-12 03:40 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 11:52 +0000
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-12 13:00 +0100
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 12:43 +0000
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-12 13:51 +0100
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 12:59 +0000
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-12 13:29 +0000
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 14:10 +0000
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-12 15:01 +0000
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 15:47 +0000
Re: which one is better gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-12-12 16:07 +0000
Re: which one is better Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-12 17:51 -0800
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-12 21:10 -0800
Re: which one is better Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2014-12-13 01:40 +0000
Re: which one is better Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-12 18:17 -0800
Re: which one is better Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2014-12-13 02:29 +0000
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-13 10:25 +0000
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-13 13:43 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-13 22:44 +0000
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-13 15:24 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-14 01:07 +0000
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-13 19:18 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-14 12:01 +0000
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-14 12:44 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-14 20:57 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-14 13:24 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-14 13:29 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-14 14:03 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-14 14:34 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-14 15:08 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-14 15:55 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 00:52 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-17 08:05 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 00:25 -0800
Re: which one is better Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-14 14:33 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-14 23:28 +0000
Re: which one is better Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-14 15:42 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-15 01:07 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 02:44 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-15 11:02 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 03:13 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 03:26 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-15 11:19 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 03:31 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-15 11:50 +0000
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-15 11:59 +0000
Re: which one is better Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-15 10:50 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-15 18:57 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 04:15 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 04:31 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 04:39 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 04:43 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 04:52 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 05:10 -0800
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-15 12:43 +0100
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-15 11:59 +0000
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-15 14:03 +0100
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-15 13:28 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 06:09 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 06:35 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-16 03:13 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-15 14:06 +0000
Re: which one is better Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-15 10:46 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 10:53 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-15 19:20 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 12:18 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 12:40 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 04:03 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 03:05 -0800
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-15 11:32 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 03:38 -0800
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-15 17:20 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 09:40 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-15 17:59 +0000
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-15 10:34 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 10:01 -0800
Re: which one is better gordonb.3j8fq@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2014-12-16 10:18 -0600
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-15 18:08 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 10:37 -0800
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-15 21:05 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 14:10 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 14:18 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-15 22:22 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 14:58 -0800
Re: which one is better Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-15 15:34 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 17:25 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-16 02:55 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-16 03:20 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-16 03:37 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 05:00 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-15 01:41 +0000
Re: which one is better Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-18 02:33 -0600
Re: which one is better Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-18 00:42 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-14 21:47 +0000
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-14 15:55 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-14 16:03 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-15 00:54 +0000
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-16 10:55 +0000
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-16 11:11 +0000
Re: which one is better Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-12-15 14:01 +1300
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-15 10:09 +0100
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-12 15:58 +0100
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 15:41 +0000
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-12 18:27 +0000
Re: which one is better Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-12-13 08:42 +1300
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 19:59 +0000
Re: which one is better Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-12 07:39 -0800
Re: which one is better gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-12-12 16:05 +0000
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-12 08:16 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 16:43 +0000
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-12 14:01 +0000
Re: which one is better rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-12 06:15 -0800
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-12 16:10 +0000
Re: which one is better rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-12 08:28 -0800
Re: which one is better gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-12-12 15:27 +0000
Re: which one is better gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-12-12 14:39 +0000
Re: which one is better Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2014-12-12 11:11 -0600
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 09:34 -0800
Re: which one is better Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-12-12 21:47 +1300
Re: which one is better Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2014-12-16 12:30 -0500
Re: which one is better Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-12-16 12:21 -0600
Re: which one is better Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-16 13:06 -0600
Re: which one is better Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-12-16 16:44 -0600
Re: which one is better Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-16 18:21 -0600
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 01:04 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 02:06 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 02:24 -0800
Page 13 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 Next page →
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-15 03:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <41b2f6bf-bbaf-419f-b152-95bb76f842ae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #54540 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 15 grudnia 2014 11:45:05 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał: > hell with low endian i think i should not accept it maybe further (i usulaly tolerated that but feel a bit tired of this0 ps wanted to joke a little and put an image of 'low indian' as i thought indian is a english name on some great people lucky lucke or old shatterhand or kevin costner mets, es low indian is fun figure but google 'low indian' only results in things like that http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/furniture-lighting/an-indian-iron-bound-teak-low-table-5566473-details.aspx sorry for much digressivnes level
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-15 11:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87ppbl6tdr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #54540 |
fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> writes: <snip> > yet problem of big endian or low endian > appears, probably i wote for big endian, its just much nicer wrote in > machine code and hex files with this > > ps example of utf-32 (in low endian sadly; i made experiment with 9 > polish letters) > > > fir > ąę ćśńź żół > > FF FE 00 00 <snip> > 05 01 00 00 > 19 01 00 00 This is little-endian UTF-32 as both the byte-order-mark above and the actual byte values show. <snip> > hell with low endian i think i should not accept it maybe further (i > usulaly tolerated that but feel a bit tired of this0 You are using LE format above, but maybe you know this. I can't tell, from what you write, what you know and what you are complaining about. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-15 03:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2eb9182f-3cb8-4a2b-a51a-1a3e4bda3851@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #54548 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 15 grudnia 2014 12:32:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Ben Bacarisse napisał: > fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> writes: > <snip> > > yet problem of big endian or low endian > > appears, probably i wote for big endian, its just much nicer wrote in > > machine code and hex files with this > > > > ps example of utf-32 (in low endian sadly; i made experiment with 9 > > polish letters) > > > > > > fir > > ąę ćśńź żół > > > > FF FE 00 00 > <snip> > > 05 01 00 00 > > 19 01 00 00 > > This is little-endian UTF-32 as both the byte-order-mark above and the > actual byte values show. > > <snip> > > hell with low endian i think i should not accept it maybe further (i > > usulaly tolerated that but feel a bit tired of this0 > > You are using LE format above, but maybe you know this. I can't tell, > from what you write, what you know and what you are complaining about. > wanted to look how polish letters look in utf-32, (i know its low endian, that was mistaken choice in text editor save as low endian utf-32 instead of big-endian which i considered is probably the better one) do you maybe know if such file without bom (when stripped) is also proper unicode?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-15 17:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8761dc7rt7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #54549 |
fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> writes: <snip> > wanted to look how polish letters look in utf-32, (i know its low > endian, that was mistaken choice in text editor save as low endian > utf-32 instead of big-endian which i considered is probably the better > one) I would not want to call these variations anything but big- or little-endian simply because of the delightful connection with Swift. > do you maybe know if such file without bom (when stripped) is also > proper unicode? Yes it is. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-15 09:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0890c14b-2040-4dfa-a898-4d4ab20dbb30@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #54572 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 15 grudnia 2014 18:21:07 UTC+1 użytkownik Ben Bacarisse napisał: > fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> writes: > <snip> > > wanted to look how polish letters look in utf-32, (i know its low > > endian, that was mistaken choice in text editor save as low endian > > utf-32 instead of big-endian which i considered is probably the better > > one) > > I would not want to call these variations anything but big- or > little-endian simply because of the delightful connection with Swift. > did not understood (weak english, some 'nuisance' phrases i do not sure how to understtod) personally never yet use unicode, after deciding thet big endian is better not only in text but also as public format fields ((as more readable, and not so schisophrenic as little endian who has low endian bytes but big endian bits, in mixed hierarchy (but defnitely not only little endian) data files )) and after deciding that variable length is bad, there is yet practical question if 16-bit unicode is such bad or not such bad, two questions - how often you will notice some departures from 'plain' 16-bit form, maybe almost never? 65tys characters seem to be wuite enough for languages, 16-biy wide coding seem to be probably most popular, if co maybe i should accept its usage too (but if its commonly irregular i would swich to 32-bit probably)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-15 17:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bkFjw.354298$il4.306125@fx06.am4> |
| In reply to | #54574 |
> personally never yet use unicode, after deciding thet big endian is better not only in text but also as public format > fields ((as more readable, and not so schisophrenic as little endian who has low endian bytes but big endian bits, in mixed hierarchy (but defnitely not only little endian) data files )) and after deciding that variable length is bad, there is yet practical question if 16-bit unicode is such bad or not such bad, > two questions Does it matter whether it's big- or little-endian? That's mainly relevant for text store in a file (or transmitted somewhere) where UTF-8 seems a better choice. In memory, it doesn't matter. (Although it can involve conversions between UTF-8 and 32-bit when reading or writing files.) > - how often you will notice some departures from 'plain' 16-bit form, > maybe almost never? 65tys characters seem > to be wuite enough for languages, > 16-biy wide coding seem to be probably most popular, if co maybe i should accept its usage too (but if its commonly irregular i would swich to 32-bit probably) Wide-character functions under Windows use 16-bits (UCS-2 I think that is). And sizeof(wchar_t) in gcc under Windows is 2 bytes. But under Ubuntu, it's 4 bytes. If you're going to use C, then perhaps the choice is out of your hands. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-15 10:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnppbkhid3.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #54575 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> Wide-character functions under Windows use 16-bits (UCS-2 I think that
> is). And sizeof(wchar_t) in gcc under Windows is 2 bytes. But under
> Ubuntu, it's 4 bytes.
If I recall correctly, the original Windows support for Unicode
used UCS-2, a representation that only allows for 2**16 code
points (perhaps fewer if some are reserved). At the time, that
was sufficient to represent all existing Unicode code points.
UTF-16 is an extension of UCS-2 that can represent all valid Unicode
characters; some of them require "surrogate pairs". I don't know
how good support is for characters outside the UCS-2 range is;
it's probably application-specific.
UCS-2 is indistinguishable from UTF-16 for text consiting entirely
of characters in the BMP (the first 2**16 code points). Similarly,
ASCII is indistinguishable from UTF-8 for text consisting entirely
of characters in the range 0..127.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-15 10:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d08491cf-3877-49a2-82f7-5871df60a89e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #54574 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 15 grudnia 2014 18:41:13 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał: > W dniu poniedziałek, 15 grudnia 2014 18:21:07 UTC+1 użytkownik Ben Bacarisse napisał: > > fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> writes: > > <snip> > > > wanted to look how polish letters look in utf-32, (i know its low > > > endian, that was mistaken choice in text editor save as low endian > > > utf-32 instead of big-endian which i considered is probably the better > > > one) > > > > I would not want to call these variations anything but big- or > > little-endian simply because of the delightful connection with Swift. > > > did not understood (weak english, some 'nuisance' phrases i do not sure how to understtod) > > personally never yet use unicode, after deciding thet big endian is better not only in text but also as public format > fields ((as more readable, and not so schisophrenic as little endian who has low endian bytes but big endian bits, in mixed hierarchy (but defnitely not only little endian) data files )) and after deciding that variable length is bad, there is yet practical question if 16-bit unicode is such bad or not such bad, > two questions > - how often you will notice some departures from 'plain' 16-bit form, > maybe almost never? 65tys characters seem > to be wuite enough for languages, > 16-biy wide coding seem to be probably most popular, if co maybe i should accept its usage too (but if its commonly irregular i would swich to 32-bit probably) ps some observation - when opening wikipedia and looking on language list on left side about half of exotic characters are displayed ok (in my opera on xp, not checked chrome and win7), about half of the exotic ones (including chineese) shows squares - how to fix that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gordonb.3j8fq@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-16 10:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <2JCdnZ1kdZjOxg3JnZ2dnUU7-T-dnZ2d@posted.internetamerica> |
| In reply to | #54577 |
> ps some observation - when opening wikipedia and looking on language list on left side about half of exotic characters are displayed ok (in my opera on xp, not checked chrome and win7), about half of the exotic ones (including chineese) shows squares - how to fix that? Start collecting and installing lots and lots of fonts. Some fonts to look for: Unifont, Code2000, Code2001, FreeSans, Sun-ExtA, and Arial Unicode MS. Make sure you get them in a format your OS can use. As I understand it, there are some blocks of Unicode characters that have no generally available fonts for them (See unicode.org, which has some lists of which fonts support which blocks of characters.) I don't see blocks on Firefox for the Wikipedia page (although there are plenty when I display code charts for, say, Gurmukhi (U+0A00 - U+0A7F), although I seem to get characters for about half of the codes. Most of these I have no idea whether they are displayed *correctly*, especially Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-15 18:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20141215094931.691@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #54574 |
On 2014-12-15, fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 15 grudnia 2014 18:21:07 UTC+1 użytkownik Ben Bacarisse napisał: >> fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> writes: >> <snip> >> > wanted to look how polish letters look in utf-32, (i know its low >> > endian, that was mistaken choice in text editor save as low endian >> > utf-32 instead of big-endian which i considered is probably the better >> > one) >> >> I would not want to call these variations anything but big- or >> little-endian simply because of the delightful connection with Swift. >> > did not understood (weak english, some 'nuisance' phrases i do not sure how > to understtod) comp.lang.c.pl is that a way. This is an international newsgroup that requires English. Many people here, myself included, are non-native speakers of English who put in the effort. Using the word "nuisance" in regard to what someone said is insulting. > personally never yet use unicode, after deciding thet big endian is better > not only in text but also as public format Unicode has nothing to do with endian. Unicode describes abstract code points which are basically integers. These can be represented in little or big endian in a given machine. The widely used UTF-8 encoding has a byte order for multi-byte characters. For code points that require more than one byte to encode, that encoding does place the most significant bits into the first byte, though it's not exactly "big endian". > - how often you will notice some departures from 'plain' 16-bit form, If you're, say, Japanese, every time you log into your PC, open your browser or read an e-mail, you're confronted with characters in the 16 bit range. > maybe almost never? 65tys characters seem > to be wuite enough for languages, s/languages/programming languages/ > 16-biy wide coding seem to be probably most popular, if co maybe i should 16 bits is enough to cover the BMP (basic multilingual plane) of Unicode. Unicode goes from 0x0 to 0x10FFFF. That requires 21 bits. 16 bits is a Microsoft Windows limitation. The WCHAR type is 16 bits wide, and so a "UTF-16" encoding is required to represent strings that have characters outside of the BMP. However, the BMP gives good practical coverage of many of the world's languages. If you don't have customers that need the program localized using characters beyond 0xFFFF, you can basically ignore the encoding and just pretend that the string is an array of code points. > accept its usage too (but if its commonly irregular i would swich to 32-bit > probably) Note that the C type wchar_t is 32 bits wide on many platforms, Windows being the notable exception.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-15 10:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bc880fe9-fcbc-48b8-aaf7-f14eb3e99ade@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #54579 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 15 grudnia 2014 19:09:05 UTC+1 użytkownik Kaz Kylheku napisał: > On 2014-12-15, fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 15 grudnia 2014 18:21:07 UTC+1 użytkownik Ben Bacarisse napisał: > >> fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> writes: > >> <snip> > >> > wanted to look how polish letters look in utf-32, (i know its low > >> > endian, that was mistaken choice in text editor save as low endian > >> > utf-32 instead of big-endian which i considered is probably the better > >> > one) > >> > >> I would not want to call these variations anything but big- or > >> little-endian simply because of the delightful connection with Swift. > >> > > did not understood (weak english, some 'nuisance' phrases i do not sure how > > to understtod) > > comp.lang.c.pl is that a way. This is an international newsgroup that requires > English. Many people here, myself included, are non-native speakers of English > who put in the effort. > > Using the word "nuisance" in regard to what someone said is insulting. > you sure? It seems to me that you again trying to teach me your primitive and untrue pseudo-philosophy (better do not do that, you seem to be silly you once called me a words now again you come to teach me?) as to criteria (criterion?), the good criterium would be the each www page in the internet - do 16-bit unicode suffice to contain the www pages ina ll languages in internet? if so thats okay
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-15 21:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20141215124249.622@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #54582 |
On 2014-12-15, fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> wrote:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 15 grudnia 2014 19:09:05 UTC+1 użytkownik Kaz Kylheku
> napisał:
>> On 2014-12-15, fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > W dniu poniedziałek, 15 grudnia 2014 18:21:07 UTC+1 użytkownik Ben
> > Bacarisse napisał:
>> >> fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> <snip>
>> >> > wanted to look how polish letters look in utf-32, (i know its low
>> >> > endian, that was mistaken choice in text editor save as low endian
>> >> > utf-32 instead of big-endian which i considered is probably the better
>> >> > one)
>> >>
>> >> I would not want to call these variations anything but big- or
>> >> little-endian simply because of the delightful connection with Swift.
>> >>
>> > did not understood (weak english, some 'nuisance' phrases i do not sure
>> > how to understtod)
>>
>> comp.lang.c.pl is that a way. This is an international newsgroup that
>> requires English. Many people here, myself included, are non-native speakers
>> of English who put in the effort.
>>
>> Using the word "nuisance" in regard to what someone said is insulting.
>>
>
> you sure? It seems to me that you again trying to teach me your primitive and
You do not have a dictionary?
Take a look here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuisance
The word invokes a cluster of negative connotations.
You told Ben that some aspects of his English usage are "nuisance phrases"
because you happen not to understand them.
> as to criteria (criterion?), the good criterium would be the each www page in
It is "criterion" in English. The reason is that it is a word of Greek
origin ("kritērion"). "Criterium" is a nice spelling in some languages which
most likely got the word through Latin.
Curiously, in English, the Latin-derived variant "criterium" also exists, and
it denotes a very specific thing: a closed-course bicycle race:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criterium
This is from French, evidently.
> the internet - do 16-bit unicode suffice to contain the www pages ina ll
> languages in internet? if so thats okay
There are many more than 11 languages, and the web is not the be-all and
end-all of digital publishing.
Anyway, the Unicode Consortium people have a handle on this problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-15 14:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <00933f1b-b5be-47f2-9545-317db42ca4b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #54596 |
I meant "nuance".. some phrases had some nuance value which is hard to guess, especially the short one (with no wider context awaliable at hand)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-15 14:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d2438780-e55b-4d59-9a6a-4497d7a4e432@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #54610 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 15 grudnia 2014 23:10:14 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał: > I meant "nuance".. some phrases had some nuance value which is hard to guess, > especially the short one (with no wider context awaliable at hand) ps some use some nuisance english too, but in this case it is probably more valuable not to understand than understand 9bless be the weak english)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-15 22:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <GaJjw.62038$7u3.34560@fx47.am4> |
| In reply to | #54610 |
fir wrote: > I meant "nuance".. If that was a mistake, it was an understandable mistake with unfortunate consequences. If it was deliberate, it backfired. Imprecision in language usage can lead to significant misunderstandings. That is why it is so important to be as precise as possible. When those who do not have English as their first language post in this newsgroup, mistakes are inevitable. People are more likely to be tolerant of your accidental mistakes if they are not constantly having to correct for your deliberate mistakes. Reading your articles is hard work, and the thought of trying to provide technical support to someone who delights in writing English that is difficult to read is a most off-putting one. > some phrases had some nuance value which is hard to > guess, especially the short one (with no wider context awaliable at hand) This paragraph shows that you are capable of writing legibly. To do so all the time would be a worthwhile goal with a real pay-off in terms of the breadth and scope of the discussions it will make available (note: not 'awaliable') to you. -- 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 | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-15 14:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <24396d08-6f16-441d-b202-bca7ad7bf7a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #54613 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 15 grudnia 2014 23:22:40 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: > fir wrote: > > > I meant "nuance".. > > If that was a mistake, it was an understandable mistake with unfortunate > consequences. If it was deliberate, it backfired. > > Imprecision in language usage can lead to significant misunderstandings. > That is why it is so important to be as precise as possible. > > When those who do not have English as their first language post in this > newsgroup, mistakes are inevitable. People are more likely to be tolerant of > your accidental mistakes if they are not constantly having to correct for > your deliberate mistakes. > > Reading your articles is hard work, and the thought of trying to provide > technical support to someone who delights in writing English that is > difficult to read is a most off-putting one. > > > some phrases had some nuance value which is hard to > > guess, especially the short one (with no wider context awaliable at hand) > > This paragraph shows that you are capable of writing legibly. To do so all > the time would be a worthwhile goal with a real pay-off in terms of the > breadth and scope of the discussions it will make available (note: not > 'awaliable') to you. > > -- > 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 bore, i do not take it for me personaly such bore pseudoteaching is worse than mistakes.. but it is my own opinion (but im not joking, such bore is a heavy sin for me an tu nuance, in polish niuance is writtrn "niuans" (same as optymisation is "optymizacja" it is much closer to mistake when my native words are close), nuance seem thus to me in english could be "niuance" somewhat turned into "nuisance" which i totally forgot what meant, (has very close feeling that "niuance", do not treat a words such narrow - -its really blis to not know english i think, i see some blessings even in mistakes as language seem somewhat more undefined, dont want to get accustomed to it to quick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-15 15:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2be20d1a-e18a-43f9-9d61-2955ef4642f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #54617 |
On Monday, December 15, 2014 10:58:19 PM UTC, fir wrote: > > for me personaly such bore pseudoteaching is worse than mistakes.. > but it is my own opinion (but im not joking, such bore is a heavy > sin for me > If you make an effort with English then most native speakers are tolerant. But if you can't be bothered even to get the capitalisation rules right, then people are likely to tease. If you speak fluent English, maybe you can get away with determining your own rules, but you've got to be very articulate even by native speaker standards to carry that off successfully.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-15 17:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a115f1cc-b9a0-4ca6-8379-55f18d3ae4c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #54620 |
W dniu wtorek, 16 grudnia 2014 00:34:15 UTC+1 użytkownik Malcolm McLean napisał: > On Monday, December 15, 2014 10:58:19 PM UTC, fir wrote: > > > > for me personaly such bore pseudoteaching is worse than mistakes.. > > but it is my own opinion (but im not joking, such bore is a heavy > > sin for me > > > If you make an effort with English then most native speakers are > tolerant. But if you can't be bothered even to get the capitalisation > rules right, then people are likely to tease. If you speak fluent > English, maybe you can get away with determining your own rules, > but you've got to be very articulate even by native speaker standards > to carry that off successfully. I will spare you my opinion coz you will not be happy ;i
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-16 02:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0a2a0cae-f18f-49e4-acb7-762889138450@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #54624 |
W dniu wtorek, 16 grudnia 2014 02:25:51 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał: > W dniu wtorek, 16 grudnia 2014 00:34:15 UTC+1 użytkownik Malcolm McLean napisał: > > to carry that off successfully. > > I will spare you my opinion coz you will not be happy ;i PS as to general i was wroting on this and dont want to waste this space and my time on repeating - find it, read it You seem not to be a good conversionalist to me becouse you share as to my standards pathologically simple low-mind and quite depressing visions which are for me far to simple to be treaten sincerily, (that is probably who you are, some kind of sad and depressing old man, but i dont ever wannt to be like that, If you want we can speak on this but some more involved analisis and oryginal thought would be needed not common simplicity-urge things) are you able to say something oryginal and young spirit? then we can go if no please do not bore me with such disgusting simple thoughts, i do not want to collect a list of old teachers of simple belifs of boredom here, the people whou are promoting such simple visions you share
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-16 03:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <269419fc-dd3d-4d38-b5dd-506723fbe850@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #54657 |
W dniu wtorek, 16 grudnia 2014 11:55:54 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał: (sorry cudtted text in half) the people whou are promoting such simple visions you share are not to much deep thinkers on this - this way this is primitive and boring also this is some kind of mind-reductional. I know many people thinks this way and they are just surprised someone can think more in depth, but imo they should be not pride on their mind-reducing attitude
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web