Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #402647 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-03 08:43 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-10-28 02:27 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 613 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-03 08:43 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-03 11:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-05 22:15 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-03 14:22 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-03 18:02 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-04 00:24 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-03 17:36 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-03 16:31 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-04 10:23 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 12:18 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-04 16:20 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-05 21:34 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 16:04 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-04 16:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 16:09 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-04 16:59 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 18:30 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-04 19:49 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 20:35 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-04 22:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 22:47 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-04 21:59 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-04 23:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-05 01:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-05 21:48 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 00:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 09:49 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 11:12 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 12:41 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-06 12:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 15:16 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-06 14:37 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 17:27 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-06 23:14 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 01:25 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-07 04:19 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-07 06:28 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 11:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 12:57 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 11:32 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-07 15:10 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 19:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-08 04:49 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-08 12:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 09:07 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 11:49 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 13:11 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 16:17 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 15:32 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 17:25 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-06 14:39 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 19:48 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-06 18:12 +0000
[OT] substances (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 21:50 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 17:06 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 19:25 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 10:28 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-07 15:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 16:40 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-08 07:24 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 16:08 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-06 23:45 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 17:08 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 10:35 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 20:53 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 12:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 17:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 16:41 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-10-06 12:14 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 12:43 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2026-10-06 11:47 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 16:05 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 18:47 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-07 00:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 13:52 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-07 14:06 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 23:31 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 18:48 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-05 21:32 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-06 06:07 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-05 16:42 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-05 18:05 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 09:04 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 04:11 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 21:40 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-16 13:12 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-06 00:59 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-06 08:16 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 04:21 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-16 04:46 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-06 14:43 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 17:36 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-06 20:36 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-04 00:20 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-04 09:05 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-04 23:44 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-05 01:46 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-04 20:48 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-05 06:24 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-05 11:09 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-06 05:22 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-06 05:26 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-10 00:25 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 01:58 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-09 19:17 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 11:53 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 14:01 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 14:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-10 21:34 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-10 21:58 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-10 17:50 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 05:52 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-11 21:16 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 23:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 11:58 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-11 14:42 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 14:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 15:35 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 14:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 17:23 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 17:48 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 19:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-12 07:01 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 16:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 20:08 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 22:02 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-10 19:03 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 22:29 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 21:55 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 23:03 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 22:33 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 21:53 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 23:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-11 15:29 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-10 15:30 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-10 22:58 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-11 09:09 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-10-11 10:14 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-11 21:12 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 03:58 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 15:32 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-11 01:58 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 01:43 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-11 09:12 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 04:07 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 20:13 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 10:36 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-16 14:22 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 15:00 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-17 01:29 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 12:48 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 12:04 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 14:09 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 14:34 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 17:13 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 16:52 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 18:16 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 20:47 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 22:38 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 11:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 03:50 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 12:59 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:28 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 09:05 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-19 14:35 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 18:31 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Bob Duff <invalid@invalid.com> - 2026-10-19 19:38 -0400
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 17:03 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 02:45 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 05:01 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 00:45 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 18:34 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 17:49 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-18 22:18 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-18 23:51 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 01:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 19:37 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-18 23:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 16:15 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 18:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 13:39 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-19 08:47 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 18:28 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-29 22:11 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 16:11 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-20 01:02 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 09:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-18 22:33 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-20 02:53 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-20 12:22 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-17 19:39 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 18:23 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-17 17:36 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-17 21:03 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-17 10:30 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-17 10:54 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-19 23:41 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 14:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-11 04:26 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 13:35 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-11 06:13 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 14:51 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-11 15:33 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-11 09:01 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-11 19:17 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 18:57 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 14:28 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 23:02 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 16:29 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-12 04:03 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-12 22:02 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 21:09 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-12 22:31 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-12 22:32 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 22:05 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 23:14 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-13 07:23 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 12:12 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 11:26 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-13 12:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 06:55 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 13:33 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 13:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-13 14:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:04 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-13 20:52 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 22:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-14 00:03 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 10:53 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-14 17:54 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 19:48 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 11:16 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-13 21:54 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-16 15:24 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 21:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-16 21:46 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 12:38 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 15:03 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-17 19:25 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-20 00:16 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-20 16:10 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 07:40 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 16:46 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 09:10 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 18:15 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:27 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-14 01:50 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 10:58 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-13 22:54 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 16:45 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:34 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-14 05:17 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 13:46 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 07:05 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 14:37 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 16:12 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 16:32 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 19:05 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 19:15 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:43 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:45 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 23:46 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 00:56 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 17:58 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 20:38 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 19:52 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-12 22:56 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 21:57 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 21:21 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 22:46 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-13 09:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 12:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 11:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-13 00:25 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 22:20 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 17:02 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 01:53 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 03:54 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-13 10:52 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-13 23:16 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:44 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 17:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 00:21 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 20:40 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 03:59 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 21:35 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 11:27 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 12:17 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 12:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 16:49 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 19:30 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-14 23:28 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-14 21:30 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 21:56 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 21:59 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 01:26 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 12:01 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 11:45 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 15:57 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 18:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-16 02:42 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 20:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-15 23:57 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 23:22 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-16 12:40 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 00:01 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 16:53 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-17 11:09 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 13:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-17 15:15 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-17 08:34 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-17 03:19 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 12:34 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-17 17:58 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 21:40 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 14:32 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-19 01:19 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-19 09:18 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-19 12:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-19 12:47 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 14:08 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-19 17:22 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-19 20:34 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 00:35 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 00:04 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-20 01:03 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 02:44 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 15:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 17:02 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 21:07 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 11:20 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 12:29 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 16:40 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-20 23:33 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 00:01 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 13:22 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 14:12 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 14:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 16:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 17:09 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 21:09 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 23:20 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 12:26 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 15:46 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 16:03 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-19 22:28 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 10:01 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 12:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 14:58 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 17:05 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 12:45 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 02:04 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 13:21 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 11:26 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 12:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 14:21 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 15:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 17:36 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 15:37 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 17:22 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-21 17:21 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 19:04 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 18:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 20:36 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 20:36 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 23:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 22:55 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 17:19 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-21 19:17 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 20:49 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 18:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-20 19:24 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 21:30 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-20 21:44 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 23:43 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 00:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 02:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 18:55 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-21 07:22 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 01:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 15:10 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 14:17 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 13:22 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 17:29 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 18:43 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:02 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-22 08:57 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-22 12:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-22 17:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-22 16:54 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-22 21:09 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 12:46 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-23 09:37 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 14:21 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 22:40 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 18:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-24 22:26 +0000
Modelling self/this? (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-25 00:56 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 16:38 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement steve g <Sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 01:13 -0400
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 22:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-24 12:58 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 21:42 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-25 10:51 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 13:54 -0700
Re: Case-Sensitivity (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-25 20:30 +0000
Re: Case-Sensitivity (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-26 10:28 -0600
Re: Case-Sensitivity (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) steve g <Sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 02:26 -0400
Re: Case-Sensitivity (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-28 15:50 +0100
Re: Case-Sensitivity (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-28 10:34 -0600
Re: Case-Sensitivity (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 19:25 +0100
Re: Case-Sensitivity (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 19:35 +0100
Re: Case-Sensitivity (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 19:40 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 16:42 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-22 18:38 -0600
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-23 04:23 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 01:09 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:48 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 01:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-19 08:46 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-19 15:00 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-19 16:55 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 02:40 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 17:24 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 16:58 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 18:26 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 18:11 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 19:32 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:44 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-19 22:35 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 23:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 23:29 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-20 00:57 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 00:55 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 10:25 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 16:56 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 17:32 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 18:23 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 15:28 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 21:11 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 18:34 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-15 05:17 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 14:37 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-15 20:50 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 19:59 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 20:49 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 18:51 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.com> - 2026-10-14 11:04 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 19:47 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 13:58 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-15 12:08 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 14:23 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-14 14:35 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-16 03:36 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 16:38 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 21:09 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 23:14 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 23:01 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 08:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 10:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 10:49 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 16:30 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 02:12 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 19:55 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 11:00 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 12:21 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 14:04 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 23:05 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 07:22 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 11:42 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 16:15 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 14:34 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 16:47 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-13 00:15 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-10-12 17:02 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-13 20:04 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-10-13 17:28 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-14 02:05 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 17:17 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 17:37 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 17:34 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 18:46 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 19:52 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 19:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:29 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 00:53 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 18:14 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 22:35 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:14 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 22:36 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-10 13:14 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 19:50 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 20:13 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 15:54 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 03:41 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-11 09:51 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-11 11:41 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 16:44 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 16:56 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-11 21:26 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-10-11 22:12 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-13 22:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 23:19 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 11:19 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-21 09:29 -0600
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 00:33 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 09:51 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:07 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 12:11 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:20 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 14:16 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 17:03 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 16:32 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 17:37 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 16:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-26 19:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 20:03 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-28 05:56 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:06 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:21 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-28 14:24 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-28 15:52 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 17:45 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 17:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 18:06 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 18:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 18:37 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 19:03 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 20:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 19:59 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 21:13 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 20:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 22:37 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 22:40 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 14:46 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 11:51 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:18 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 21:49 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 14:23 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 14:25 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-27 22:39 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2026-10-27 22:44 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-27 23:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 16:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-27 20:06 -0600
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 19:21 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-28 16:00 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-28 10:35 -0600
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-28 11:59 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-28 23:25 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 08:28 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 08:32 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-29 22:16 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 16:08 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 08:31 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 09:13 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 09:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-28 11:09 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-28 09:04 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:25 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-28 00:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 08:23 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-28 12:02 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-28 23:31 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 22:51 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 21:32 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 21:47 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 21:11 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 14:17 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 21:50 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-26 23:37 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 00:01 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 00:28 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 00:55 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 09:50 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-27 01:12 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 18:43 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 09:37 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-27 11:51 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 12:57 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-27 12:14 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:22 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:30 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:48 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-27 13:54 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 15:19 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 15:20 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 15:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 15:36 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-27 17:13 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 18:45 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-27 18:16 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-27 19:21 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 20:42 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:16 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 21:36 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:53 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 08:05 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 14:43 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 21:55 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 15:01 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-29 08:30 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-29 08:38 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-29 08:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 12:31 +0100
Re: BizFuss (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-30 08:27 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-28 05:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:45 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-29 07:34 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement steve g <Sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 02:27 -0400
Page 29 of 31 — ← Prev page 1 … 27 28 [29] 30 31 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 09:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bsa9p$27vq2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403677 |
On 28/10/2026 03:06, Blaine wrote: > Keith Thompson wrote: >> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes: >>> In article <slrn11e2aa4.2i9.dan@djph.net>, Dan Purgert >>> <dan@djph.net> wrote: >>>> On 2026-10-27, Richard Harnden wrote: >>>>> On 27/10/2026 21:25, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>> On 10/27/2026 1:49 PM, fir wrote: >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>> I can see it now. Somebody hires you as their graphics guy. They >>>>>> say go >>>>>> at it. You ask well, where is the AI, you get fired on the same day? >>>>> >>>>> The lazy/incoherent way fir writes ... I can't see his CV getting past >>>>> the AI vetting stage. >>>> >>>> It's okay, he used AI. >>> >>> But seriously though why can't he use AI for his spelling and >>> grammar. >> >> He doesn't want to. He's made it clear that taking the time to >> write clearly is beneath him. That's not going to change. >> >> Replying to him is a waste of everyone's time. >> > And then there's Keith Thompson. He makes mistake after mistake, yet > keeps on trucking never apologizing. He's a waste of everyone's time. Go > ahead and killfile this guy. I guess I don't mind and it will improve > upon the experience you are having. > Keith is a big part of why there still is a comp.lang.c group, and why people ask questions and discuss C here. His knowledge, patience, and willingness to help people interested in C is legendary - as is his impatience and intolerance of trolls and rudeness. Sure, he occasionally makes mistakes - but not often, and he makes a point of correcting them. If you don't like Keith's posts, I'd recommend you simply unsubscribe from comp.lang.c.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 14:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11btp8d$2q8v8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403701 |
On 10/28/2026 1:04 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 28/10/2026 03:06, Blaine wrote: >> Keith Thompson wrote: >>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes: >>>> In article <slrn11e2aa4.2i9.dan@djph.net>, Dan Purgert >>>> <dan@djph.net> wrote: >>>>> On 2026-10-27, Richard Harnden wrote: >>>>>> On 27/10/2026 21:25, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/27/2026 1:49 PM, fir wrote: >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can see it now. Somebody hires you as their graphics guy. They >>>>>>> say go >>>>>>> at it. You ask well, where is the AI, you get fired on the same day? >>>>>> >>>>>> The lazy/incoherent way fir writes ... I can't see his CV getting >>>>>> past >>>>>> the AI vetting stage. >>>>> >>>>> It's okay, he used AI. >>>> >>>> But seriously though why can't he use AI for his spelling and >>>> grammar. >>> >>> He doesn't want to. He's made it clear that taking the time to >>> write clearly is beneath him. That's not going to change. >>> >>> Replying to him is a waste of everyone's time. >>> >> And then there's Keith Thompson. He makes mistake after mistake, yet >> keeps on trucking never apologizing. He's a waste of everyone's time. >> Go ahead and killfile this guy. I guess I don't mind and it will >> improve upon the experience you are having. >> > > Keith is a big part of why there still is a comp.lang.c group, and why > people ask questions and discuss C here. His knowledge, patience, and > willingness to help people interested in C is legendary - as is his > impatience and intolerance of trolls and rudeness. Sure, he > occasionally makes mistakes - but not often, and he makes a point of > correcting them. > > If you don't like Keith's posts, I'd recommend you simply unsubscribe > from comp.lang.c. > Agreed. Keith is a great oracle of knowledge of C. So are you. But, you two are not alone. There are others. I have been on this group for a fairly long time and got to converse with some very smart people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 00:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11brcms$139ta$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403668 |
On 2026-10-28 00:00, Dan Cross wrote: > In article <slrn11e2aa4.2i9.dan@djph.net>, Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote: >> On 2026-10-27, Richard Harnden wrote: >>> On 27/10/2026 21:25, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> On 10/27/2026 1:49 PM, fir wrote: >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> I can see it now. Somebody hires you as their graphics guy. They say go >>>> at it. You ask well, where is the AI, you get fired on the same day? >>> >>> The lazy/incoherent way fir writes ... I can't see his CV getting past >>> the AI vetting stage. >> >> It's okay, he used AI. > > But seriously though why can't he use AI for his spelling and > grammar. Why doesn't he communicate completely and exclusively with an AI instead of posting in newsgroups, spouting gibberish at humans. (An AI appears to be the perfect communication partner for that individual! One could even think that AIs have been developed for exactly this kind of clients in mind.) Janis PS: Related question: Why do some folks here play the role of the AI and continuously feed him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 08:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bs7ud$27617$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403670 |
Janis Papanagnou pisze: > On 2026-10-28 00:00, Dan Cross wrote: >> In article <slrn11e2aa4.2i9.dan@djph.net>, Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> >> wrote: >>> On 2026-10-27, Richard Harnden wrote: >>>> On 27/10/2026 21:25, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>> On 10/27/2026 1:49 PM, fir wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> I can see it now. Somebody hires you as their graphics guy. They >>>>> say go >>>>> at it. You ask well, where is the AI, you get fired on the same day? >>>> >>>> The lazy/incoherent way fir writes ... I can't see his CV getting past >>>> the AI vetting stage. >>> >>> It's okay, he used AI. >> >> But seriously though why can't he use AI for his spelling and >> grammar. > > Why doesn't he communicate completely and exclusively with an AI > instead of posting in newsgroups, spouting gibberish at humans. > > (An AI appears to be the perfect communication partner for that > individual! One could even think that AIs have been developed for > exactly this kind of clients in mind.) > > Janis > > PS: Related question: Why do some folks here play the role of the > AI and continuously feed him. > not reapiring the mistypes has very big advantage it keeps clowns like you away.. so who would want to resign it
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 12:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86cxstmywh.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #403670 |
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: > On 2026-10-28 00:00, Dan Cross wrote: > >> In some article, Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote: >> >>> On 2026-10-27, Richard Harnden wrote: >>> >>>> On 27/10/2026 21:25, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 10/27/2026 1:49 PM, fir wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> I can see it now. Somebody hires you as their graphics guy. >>>>> They say go at it. You ask well, where is the AI, you get fired >>>>> on the same day? >>>> >>>> The lazy/incoherent way fir writes ... I can't see his CV getting >>>> past the AI vetting stage. >>> >>> It's okay, he used AI. >> >> But seriously though why can't he use AI for his spelling and >> grammar. > > Why doesn't he communicate completely and exclusively with an AI > instead of posting in newsgroups, spouting gibberish at humans. > > (An AI appears to be the perfect communication partner for that > individual! One could even think that AIs have been developed for > exactly this kind of clients in mind.) > > > PS: Related question: Why do some folks here play the role of the > AI and continuously feed him. Why do you make things worse by encouraging further pointless discussion?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 23:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11btt43$139ta$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403737 |
On 2026-10-28 20:02, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: > >> On 2026-10-28 00:00, Dan Cross wrote: >> >>> In some article, Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2026-10-27, Richard Harnden wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 27/10/2026 21:25, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10/27/2026 1:49 PM, fir wrote: >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>> I can see it now. Somebody hires you as their graphics guy. >>>>>> They say go at it. You ask well, where is the AI, you get fired >>>>>> on the same day? >>>>> >>>>> The lazy/incoherent way fir writes ... I can't see his CV getting >>>>> past the AI vetting stage. >>>> >>>> It's okay, he used AI. >>> >>> But seriously though why can't he use AI for his spelling and >>> grammar. >> >> Why doesn't he communicate completely and exclusively with an AI >> instead of posting in newsgroups, spouting gibberish at humans. >> >> (An AI appears to be the perfect communication partner for that >> individual! One could even think that AIs have been developed for >> exactly this kind of clients in mind.) >> >> >> PS: Related question: Why do some folks here play the role of the >> AI and continuously feed him. > > Why do you make things worse by encouraging further pointless > discussion? You post here a lot of unproved opinions; "making things worse"? "encouraging pointless discussions"? And what is the role of your post. - If you have nothing substantial and objective to say why don't you just abstain from adding your noise instead of trying to teach others to not make what you regularly do! Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 22:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11boi11$10feh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403588 |
bartc pisze:
> On 26/10/2026 20:13, fir wrote:
>> bartc pisze:
>>> On 26/10/2026 19:39, fir wrote:
>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>
>>>>>> 1 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>>> 2 divides by 2
>>>>>> 3 divides by 3
>>>>>> 4 divides by 2
>>>>>> 5 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>>> 6 divides by 2
>>>>>> 6 divides by 3
>>>>>> 7 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>>> 8 divides by 2
>>>>>> 9 divides by 3
>>>>>> 10 divides by 2
>>>>>> 11 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>>> 12 divides by 2
>>>>>> 12 divides by 3
>>>>>> 13 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>>> 14 divides by 2
>>>>>> 15 divides by 3
>>>>>> 16 divides by 2
>>>>>> 17 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>>> 18 divides by 2
>>>>>> 18 divides by 3
>>>>>> 19 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, thanks. So the pattern you're talking about is this:
>>>>>
>>>>> case (c1) {s1}
>>>>> case (c2) {s2}
>>>>> case (c3) {s3}
>>>>> else {s4}
>>>>>
>>>>> where each of s1/s2/s3 is executed if the corresponding c1/c2/c3 is
>>>>> true, independently of the others. At least one statement will be
>>>>> executed in 7 of the 8 possible boolean combinations in this example.
>>>>>
>>>>> s4 is only executed when each of c1/c2/c3 is false. In other words:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (c1) {s1}
>>>>> if (c2) {s2}
>>>>> if (c3) {s3}
>>>>> if (!c1 && !c2 && !c3) {s4}
>>>>>
>>>>> Assuming c1/c2/c3 are not modified by s1/s2/s3, but this is also
>>>>> partly the case with your proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or maybe it can be done like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (c1 || c2 || c3) {
>>>>> s4
>>>>> else if (c1) {s1)
>>>>> ....
>>>>>
>>>>> The syntax will anyway need some work to tie all those case/if
>>>>> parts together (as s2 for example could contain nested versions).
>>>>>
>>>>> Or you can forget about having to create a hard-to-grasp and
>>>>> awkward- to-implement feature like this, and either use workarounds
>>>>> like my C examples, or use another approach to the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> hahaha
>>>>
>>>> lol ye use worakarounds instead of simple right solution
>>>
>>> The right solution to what problem? It took multiple posts before you
>>> even managed to explain how your proposal is supposed to behave.
>>>
>>
>> well i was surprised how slow you think it is the reason you get
>> things slow - and that s why it took multiple posts
>
> Mainly from you failing to explain? You wrote comments like this:
>
> "this wouldnt work imo as far as im aware becouse this last else dont
> work on "group'"
>
> IMO? It either works or it doesn't, and if not, explain why 'or' was not
> just an alias for 'else'.
>
>> and i make laugh becouse its funny how some slowly take some things
>> and how bad answer thay give - its kinda laughable
>
> Well, this is the thing: given a well-specified, well-thought-out
> feature, I can probably implement it in one of my compilers within a day.
>
> That can serve as a proof-of-concept, and can be used to see how well it
> stands up and how useful it actually is.
>
> This one wouldn't pass that bar. But also, I've not convinced that you
> put much thought into it. If I implemented it, you'd change your mind
> about it, or add new twists, or get bored and think up something else.
>
> It would be a waste of time.
>
> So what's the purpose of these hundreds of wacky, random ideas: do you
> expect someone else to implement them for you? If so, in which language?
>
> Today was a bit of fun, but I can't take your ideas seriously.
>
implementation is not so much importand..as i said more than once here
the implementation is far easier that obtaining some of the observations
and conclusions
do make some implementation one nedd to do a dose of relatively shallow
work (not totally as imlementation also has its depth) but to go to
some conclusion imo needs more deep and open work
thse ideas are also not random
for example noticing that if else sytem in c is generally flawed
is quite notable..i wouldnt say its random idea
overally c as language some could say is drafted with a hundreds of
random ideas (in such sense of random)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 21:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bodc6$ul1k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403583 |
bartc pisze:
> On 26/10/2026 19:39, fir wrote:
>> bartc pisze:
>
>>>> 1 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 2 divides by 2
>>>> 3 divides by 3
>>>> 4 divides by 2
>>>> 5 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 6 divides by 2
>>>> 6 divides by 3
>>>> 7 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 8 divides by 2
>>>> 9 divides by 3
>>>> 10 divides by 2
>>>> 11 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 12 divides by 2
>>>> 12 divides by 3
>>>> 13 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 14 divides by 2
>>>> 15 divides by 3
>>>> 16 divides by 2
>>>> 17 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 18 divides by 2
>>>> 18 divides by 3
>>>> 19 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>
>>> OK, thanks. So the pattern you're talking about is this:
>>>
>>> case (c1) {s1}
>>> case (c2) {s2}
>>> case (c3) {s3}
>>> else {s4}
>>>
>>> where each of s1/s2/s3 is executed if the corresponding c1/c2/c3 is
>>> true, independently of the others. At least one statement will be
>>> executed in 7 of the 8 possible boolean combinations in this example.
>>>
>>> s4 is only executed when each of c1/c2/c3 is false. In other words:
>>>
>>> if (c1) {s1}
>>> if (c2) {s2}
>>> if (c3) {s3}
>>> if (!c1 && !c2 && !c3) {s4}
>>>
>>> Assuming c1/c2/c3 are not modified by s1/s2/s3, but this is also
>>> partly the case with your proposal.
>>>
>>> Or maybe it can be done like this:
>>>
>>> if (c1 || c2 || c3) {
>>> s4
>>> else if (c1) {s1)
>>> ....
>>>
>>> The syntax will anyway need some work to tie all those case/if parts
>>> together (as s2 for example could contain nested versions).
>>>
>>> Or you can forget about having to create a hard-to-grasp and awkward-
>>> to-implement feature like this, and either use workarounds like my C
>>> examples, or use another approach to the problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> hahaha
>>
>> lol ye use worakarounds instead of simple right solution
>
> The right solution to what problem? It took multiple posts before you
> even managed to explain how your proposal is supposed to behave.
>
> (And then tomorrow it'll probably do something else.)
>
>> (this solution may come in some plavours as i said before, but this or
>> ketword for reasons mentioned is not bad)
>
> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or' keyword
> to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real example.
>
you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way becouse
there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed combinations generally
with sole if 's and else's
as was showed here
> Because I've not convinced it comes up often enough to be worth a
> dedicated feature.
>
> Then, consider examples like this:
>
> case (a==b and c==d) {}
> case (a==b and e==f) {}
>
> case (a<b) {}
> case (a>=b) {}
> case (c==d) {}
>
> You'll find, when converting to regular C, that detecting the case of
> all false will mean checking all conditions, but now those will contain
> duplicates. It is hard to cleanly express, which is a bad sign as a
> prospective language feature.
i dont like get what you talk here..overally this is a work for compiler
to simplify it in output
btw you think i should defend the things i was talking about -
i more see its a waste of time if someone dont understand things
it is for him if he understoods or not, i have not so much time to
defend obvious things against the people who not care to much to
understand things
i would sy like its taking hours repairing a code that is
good - whou would like to do it?
generally such time spanding that you got good code and some weird
people come nad put a bulshit its wrong and expect me to explain this is
not its not a good time spending imo
i would rather expect if some will find some 'bug ' in code then he
first should understand it
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 21:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11boe8t$v04r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403586 |
fir pisze:
> bartc pisze:
>> On 26/10/2026 19:39, fir wrote:
>>> bartc pisze:
>>
>>>>> 1 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>> 2 divides by 2
>>>>> 3 divides by 3
>>>>> 4 divides by 2
>>>>> 5 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>> 6 divides by 2
>>>>> 6 divides by 3
>>>>> 7 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>> 8 divides by 2
>>>>> 9 divides by 3
>>>>> 10 divides by 2
>>>>> 11 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>> 12 divides by 2
>>>>> 12 divides by 3
>>>>> 13 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>> 14 divides by 2
>>>>> 15 divides by 3
>>>>> 16 divides by 2
>>>>> 17 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>> 18 divides by 2
>>>>> 18 divides by 3
>>>>> 19 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>>
>>>> OK, thanks. So the pattern you're talking about is this:
>>>>
>>>> case (c1) {s1}
>>>> case (c2) {s2}
>>>> case (c3) {s3}
>>>> else {s4}
>>>>
>>>> where each of s1/s2/s3 is executed if the corresponding c1/c2/c3 is
>>>> true, independently of the others. At least one statement will be
>>>> executed in 7 of the 8 possible boolean combinations in this example.
>>>>
>>>> s4 is only executed when each of c1/c2/c3 is false. In other words:
>>>>
>>>> if (c1) {s1}
>>>> if (c2) {s2}
>>>> if (c3) {s3}
>>>> if (!c1 && !c2 && !c3) {s4}
>>>>
>>>> Assuming c1/c2/c3 are not modified by s1/s2/s3, but this is also
>>>> partly the case with your proposal.
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe it can be done like this:
>>>>
>>>> if (c1 || c2 || c3) {
>>>> s4
>>>> else if (c1) {s1)
>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>> The syntax will anyway need some work to tie all those case/if parts
>>>> together (as s2 for example could contain nested versions).
>>>>
>>>> Or you can forget about having to create a hard-to-grasp and
>>>> awkward- to-implement feature like this, and either use workarounds
>>>> like my C examples, or use another approach to the problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> hahaha
>>>
>>> lol ye use worakarounds instead of simple right solution
>>
>> The right solution to what problem? It took multiple posts before you
>> even managed to explain how your proposal is supposed to behave.
>>
>> (And then tomorrow it'll probably do something else.)
>>
>>> (this solution may come in some plavours as i said before, but this
>>> or ketword for reasons mentioned is not bad)
>>
>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or' keyword
>> to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real example.
>>
>
> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way becouse
> there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed combinations generally
> with sole if 's and else's
>
> as was showed here
>
>
>> Because I've not convinced it comes up often enough to be worth a
>> dedicated feature.
>>
>> Then, consider examples like this:
>>
>> case (a==b and c==d) {}
>> case (a==b and e==f) {}
>>
>> case (a<b) {}
>> case (a>=b) {}
>> case (c==d) {}
>>
>> You'll find, when converting to regular C, that detecting the case of
>> all false will mean checking all conditions, but now those will
>> contain duplicates. It is hard to cleanly express, which is a bad sign
>> as a prospective language feature.
>
>
> i dont like get what you talk here..overally this is a work for compiler
> to simplify it in output
>
>
> btw you think i should defend the things i was talking about -
> i more see its a waste of time if someone dont understand things
> it is for him if he understoods or not, i have not so much time to
> defend obvious things against the people who not care to much to
> understand things
>
> i would sy like its taking hours repairing a code that is
> good - whou would like to do it?
>
>
> generally such time spanding that you got good code and some weird
> people come nad put a bulshit its wrong and expect me to explain this is
> not its not a good time spending imo
>
> i would rather expect if some will find some 'bug ' in code then he
> first should understand it
overally instead of dwelling in this timewaste some could consider more
interesting things, for example if normal switch is like
"some true" then {} else {}
there could be considered usability of more cases
"all true" then {} else {}
"none true" then {} else {}
"only one true" then {} else {}
"only one false" then {} else {}
im not sure as to usability of this but if its usable then
it maybe can be encoded by more keywords instead of then
and else
like
case a<2 {}
case a>4 {}
case a==0 {}
case none {} //like default
case all {}
case some {}
so it seems that switch can be extended thsi way
(not sure as to usability of this)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 21:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11bofl7$vjil$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403586 |
On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
> bartc pisze:
>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or' keyword
>> to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real example.
>>
>
> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way becouse
> there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed combinations generally
> with sole if 's and else's
>
> as was showed here
There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
* To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
an existing language whose behaviour is well known
* To highlight the problem areas
For example:
if (f1()) {}
if (f2()) {}
...
if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
setting flags.
>> You'll find, when converting to regular C, that detecting the case of
>> all false will mean checking all conditions, but now those will
>> contain duplicates. It is hard to cleanly express, which is a bad sign
>> as a prospective language feature.
>
>
> i dont like get what you talk here..overally this is a work for compiler
> to simplify it in output
In my case the compiler is my job too!
> btw you think i should defend the things i was talking about -
> i more see its a waste of time if someone dont understand things
> it is for him if he understoods or not, i have not so much time to
> defend obvious things against the people who not care to much to
> understand things
>
> i would sy like its taking hours repairing a code that is
> good - whou would like to do it?
>
>
> generally such time spanding that you got good code and some weird
> people come nad put a bulshit its wrong and expect me to explain this is
> not its not a good time spending imo
> i would rather expect if some will find some 'bug ' in code then he
> first should understand it
Why bother posting in a public forum if you don't care about people
understand what you're on about? Do you not want people to engage?
Then post to alt.test instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 14:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11bog1o$vhqi$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403589 |
On 10/26/2026 2:11 PM, bartc wrote:
> On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
>> bartc pisze:
>
>>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or'
>>> keyword to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real
>>> example.
>>>
>>
>> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way becouse
>> there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed combinations
>> generally with sole if 's and else's
>>
>> as was showed here
> There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
>
> * To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
> an existing language whose behaviour is well known
>
> * To highlight the problem areas
>
> For example:
>
> if (f1()) {}
> if (f2()) {}
> ...
> if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
>
> Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
> setting flags.
So you call f1 and f2, then call if (!f1() && !f2()) {}. So, that is
your choice. Not the fault of C, right?
>
>
>>> You'll find, when converting to regular C, that detecting the case of
>>> all false will mean checking all conditions, but now those will
>>> contain duplicates. It is hard to cleanly express, which is a bad
>>> sign as a prospective language feature.
>>
>>
>> i dont like get what you talk here..overally this is a work for compiler
>> to simplify it in output
>
> In my case the compiler is my job too!
>
>> btw you think i should defend the things i was talking about -
>> i more see its a waste of time if someone dont understand things
>> it is for him if he understoods or not, i have not so much time to
>> defend obvious things against the people who not care to much to
>> understand things
>>
>> i would sy like its taking hours repairing a code that is
>> good - whou would like to do it?
>>
>>
>> generally such time spanding that you got good code and some weird
>> people come nad put a bulshit its wrong and expect me to explain this
>> is not its not a good time spending imo
>
>> i would rather expect if some will find some 'bug ' in code then he
>> first should understand it
>
> Why bother posting in a public forum if you don't care about people
> understand what you're on about? Do you not want people to engage?
>
> Then post to alt.test instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 21:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11bohun$10fjv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403590 |
On 26/10/2026 21:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 10/26/2026 2:11 PM, bartc wrote:
>> On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
>>> bartc pisze:
>>
>>>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or'
>>>> keyword to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real
>>>> example.
>>>>
>>>
>>> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way becouse
>>> there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed combinations
>>> generally with sole if 's and else's
>>>
>>> as was showed here
>> There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
>>
>> * To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
>> an existing language whose behaviour is well known
>>
>> * To highlight the problem areas
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> if (f1()) {}
>> if (f2()) {}
>> ...
>> if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
>>
>> Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
>> setting flags.
>
> So you call f1 and f2, then call if (!f1() && !f2()) {}. So, that is
> your choice. Not the fault of C, right?
It's not the fault of C. But the C illustrates the logic of this new
feature: it must only call the 'else' clause when none of the conditions
are true.
But if the most direct way of expressing it has this issue, then extra
workarounds are needed, for example:
flag=1;
if f1() {flag=0;...)
if f2() {flag=0;...)
if (flag) {}
(Note the logic here is slightly different: the else block is executed
when none of the previous blocks have been entered. Because conditionals
may have different values at this point. But we don't know the proper spec.)
This actually isn't too bad, but in that case, why do we even need this
new feature?
My main problem with it is that it is unintuitive and that its use-cases
are limited. It's also likely to morph into something else when fir gets
bored with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 23:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bokna$1192k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403595 |
On 26/10/2026 22:50, bartc wrote:
> On 26/10/2026 21:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 10/26/2026 2:11 PM, bartc wrote:
>>> On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>
>>>>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or'
>>>>> keyword to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real
>>>>> example.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way
>>>> becouse there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed
>>>> combinations generally with sole if 's and else's
>>>>
>>>> as was showed here
>>> There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
>>>
>>> * To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
>>> an existing language whose behaviour is well known
>>>
>>> * To highlight the problem areas
>>>
>>> For example:
>>>
>>> if (f1()) {}
>>> if (f2()) {}
>>> ...
>>> if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
>>>
>>> Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
>>> setting flags.
>>
>> So you call f1 and f2, then call if (!f1() && !f2()) {}. So, that is
>> your choice. Not the fault of C, right?
>
> It's not the fault of C. But the C illustrates the logic of this new
> feature: it must only call the 'else' clause when none of the conditions
> are true.
>
> But if the most direct way of expressing it has this issue, then extra
> workarounds are needed, for example:
>
> flag=1;
> if f1() {flag=0;...)
> if f2() {flag=0;...)
> if (flag) {}
>
> (Note the logic here is slightly different: the else block is executed
> when none of the previous blocks have been entered. Because conditionals
> may have different values at this point. But we don't know the proper
> spec.)
>
> This actually isn't too bad, but in that case, why do we even need this
> new feature?
>
> My main problem with it is that it is unintuitive and that its use-cases
> are limited. It's also likely to morph into something else when fir gets
> bored with it.
>
>
#define fir_switch _Bool flag = 1; {
#define or_if(...) } if (__VA_ARGS__) { flag = 0;
#define otherwise } if (!flag)
Then Fir can write :
fir_switch
or_if (x % 2 == 0) printf("\n divides by 2");
or_if (x % 3 == 0) printf("\n divides by 3");
otherwise printf("\n does not divide by 2 or 3");
I haven't tested the defines, and I think it is a terrible idea (it
should at least be called "and_if"), but it comes very close to the
syntax and semantics Fir appears to want.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 00:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bom51$11u3m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403599 |
David Brown pisze:
> On 26/10/2026 22:50, bartc wrote:
>> On 26/10/2026 21:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 10/26/2026 2:11 PM, bartc wrote:
>>>> On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
>>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>
>>>>>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or'
>>>>>> keyword to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real
>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way
>>>>> becouse there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed
>>>>> combinations generally with sole if 's and else's
>>>>>
>>>>> as was showed here
>>>> There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
>>>>
>>>> * To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
>>>> an existing language whose behaviour is well known
>>>>
>>>> * To highlight the problem areas
>>>>
>>>> For example:
>>>>
>>>> if (f1()) {}
>>>> if (f2()) {}
>>>> ...
>>>> if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
>>>>
>>>> Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
>>>> setting flags.
>>>
>>> So you call f1 and f2, then call if (!f1() && !f2()) {}. So, that is
>>> your choice. Not the fault of C, right?
>>
>> It's not the fault of C. But the C illustrates the logic of this new
>> feature: it must only call the 'else' clause when none of the
>> conditions are true.
>>
>> But if the most direct way of expressing it has this issue, then extra
>> workarounds are needed, for example:
>>
>> flag=1;
>> if f1() {flag=0;...)
>> if f2() {flag=0;...)
>> if (flag) {}
>>
>> (Note the logic here is slightly different: the else block is executed
>> when none of the previous blocks have been entered. Because
>> conditionals may have different values at this point. But we don't
>> know the proper spec.)
>>
>> This actually isn't too bad, but in that case, why do we even need
>> this new feature?
>>
>> My main problem with it is that it is unintuitive and that its
>> use-cases are limited. It's also likely to morph into something else
>> when fir gets bored with it.
>>
>>
>
> #define fir_switch _Bool flag = 1; {
> #define or_if(...) } if (__VA_ARGS__) { flag = 0;
> #define otherwise } if (!flag)
>
> Then Fir can write :
>
> fir_switch
> or_if (x % 2 == 0) printf("\n divides by 2");
> or_if (x % 3 == 0) printf("\n divides by 3");
> otherwise printf("\n does not divide by 2 or 3");
>
> I haven't tested the defines, and I think it is a terrible idea (it
> should at least be called "and_if"), but it comes very close to the
> syntax and semantics Fir appears to want.
>
>
totally no, its not also i want this i just makec conclusion if-else
system is flawed
you may ment it on some ways lik
if {}
or
if {}
else {}
or
case {}
case {}
otherwise {}
in first case you got heneral system of logic operators applied to group
of ifs (coz you may use not olny or but also and or not etc),
in second you got like predefined keywords for "or or or" case
(here in fact otherwise keyword means use or for cases and of 0
evaluate otherwise)
i thing you will nned a general but predefined may be also handy so
eventually language could implement both (such as it has many forms for
loops to increase intentions readability)
flag is a nonsense its liek implementing else with flag
int not = 1;
if (a>2) {not =0; //...}
if(not) {}
;C
NOTE btw this case not only shows flaw in if rlse system but is just
natural fom of switch (both of them i mean "if or if else" and "case
case otherwise"..and imo thsi form is better than switch as its more
natural its grounded -its also shows lacks of switch so it shows both
if-else system is flawed and switch is flawed too
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 00:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bonn2$12f6n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403600 |
fir pisze:
> David Brown pisze:
>> On 26/10/2026 22:50, bartc wrote:
>>> On 26/10/2026 21:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 10/26/2026 2:11 PM, bartc wrote:
>>>>> On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
>>>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or'
>>>>>>> keyword to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a
>>>>>>> real example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way
>>>>>> becouse there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed
>>>>>> combinations generally with sole if 's and else's
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as was showed here
>>>>> There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
>>>>>
>>>>> * To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
>>>>> an existing language whose behaviour is well known
>>>>>
>>>>> * To highlight the problem areas
>>>>>
>>>>> For example:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (f1()) {}
>>>>> if (f2()) {}
>>>>> ...
>>>>> if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
>>>>>
>>>>> Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
>>>>> setting flags.
>>>>
>>>> So you call f1 and f2, then call if (!f1() && !f2()) {}. So, that is
>>>> your choice. Not the fault of C, right?
>>>
>>> It's not the fault of C. But the C illustrates the logic of this new
>>> feature: it must only call the 'else' clause when none of the
>>> conditions are true.
>>>
>>> But if the most direct way of expressing it has this issue, then
>>> extra workarounds are needed, for example:
>>>
>>> flag=1;
>>> if f1() {flag=0;...)
>>> if f2() {flag=0;...)
>>> if (flag) {}
>>>
>>> (Note the logic here is slightly different: the else block is
>>> executed when none of the previous blocks have been entered. Because
>>> conditionals may have different values at this point. But we don't
>>> know the proper spec.)
>>>
>>> This actually isn't too bad, but in that case, why do we even need
>>> this new feature?
>>>
>>> My main problem with it is that it is unintuitive and that its
>>> use-cases are limited. It's also likely to morph into something else
>>> when fir gets bored with it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> #define fir_switch _Bool flag = 1; {
>> #define or_if(...) } if (__VA_ARGS__) { flag = 0;
>> #define otherwise } if (!flag)
>>
>> Then Fir can write :
>>
>> fir_switch
>> or_if (x % 2 == 0) printf("\n divides by 2");
>> or_if (x % 3 == 0) printf("\n divides by 3");
>> otherwise printf("\n does not divide by 2 or 3");
>>
>> I haven't tested the defines, and I think it is a terrible idea (it
>> should at least be called "and_if"), but it comes very close to the
>> syntax and semantics Fir appears to want.
>>
>>
>
> totally no, its not also i want this i just makec conclusion if-else
> system is flawed
>
> you may ment it on some ways lik
>
> if {}
> or
> if {}
> else {}
>
> or
>
> case {}
> case {}
> otherwise {}
>
> in first case you got heneral system of logic operators applied to group
> of ifs (coz you may use not olny or but also and or not etc),
>
> in second you got like predefined keywords for "or or or" case
> (here in fact otherwise keyword means use or for cases and of 0
> evaluate otherwise)
>
> i thing you will nned a general but predefined may be also handy so
> eventually language could implement both (such as it has many forms for
> loops to increase intentions readability)
>
>
> flag is a nonsense its liek implementing else with flag
>
> int not = 1;
>
> if (a>2) {not =0; //...}
> if(not) {}
>
> ;C
>
> NOTE btw this case not only shows flaw in if rlse system but is just
> natural fom of switch (both of them i mean "if or if else" and "case
> case otherwise"..and imo thsi form is better than switch as its more
> natural its grounded -its also shows lacks of switch so it shows both
> if-else system is flawed and switch is flawed too
>
overally switch in c imo is in fact quite like goto not like if
but even if so its not general as it should bcouse if so then you should
also be jumping back
switch n //goto 1 2 3 if other goto default
case 1:
case 2:
case 4:
default:
//if so it should allow amany switches and jumps back
int s =1;
case 2:
switch s
case 1:
int b =2
case 3:
case 4:
switch b
case 5:
such switch i would more like as its much ore logical and right
but if so switch sjould be eventually named goto
(eventually goto() to make difference withh jumping under labe a and
value of (a) (though it also may staj switch for illustration here) and
case may be removed, defaul should be ranemed by other which more fits
the meaning
foo()
{
int s =1;
2:
switch s
1:
int b =2
3:
4:
switch b
other:
}
it illustrates soe things, like this c swich syntax should be
switch s;
1:
2:
3:
other:
break is not a part of it indeed it just is to make jump outside a block
*could eventually be also continue
if so some could at block at free will
switch s;
1: {2:
3: break;
other: continue; }
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 00:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bop90$12ukl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403600 |
fir pisze:
> David Brown pisze:
>> On 26/10/2026 22:50, bartc wrote:
>>> On 26/10/2026 21:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 10/26/2026 2:11 PM, bartc wrote:
>>>>> On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
>>>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or'
>>>>>>> keyword to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a
>>>>>>> real example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way
>>>>>> becouse there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed
>>>>>> combinations generally with sole if 's and else's
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as was showed here
>>>>> There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
>>>>>
>>>>> * To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
>>>>> an existing language whose behaviour is well known
>>>>>
>>>>> * To highlight the problem areas
>>>>>
>>>>> For example:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (f1()) {}
>>>>> if (f2()) {}
>>>>> ...
>>>>> if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
>>>>>
>>>>> Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
>>>>> setting flags.
>>>>
>>>> So you call f1 and f2, then call if (!f1() && !f2()) {}. So, that is
>>>> your choice. Not the fault of C, right?
>>>
>>> It's not the fault of C. But the C illustrates the logic of this new
>>> feature: it must only call the 'else' clause when none of the
>>> conditions are true.
>>>
>>> But if the most direct way of expressing it has this issue, then
>>> extra workarounds are needed, for example:
>>>
>>> flag=1;
>>> if f1() {flag=0;...)
>>> if f2() {flag=0;...)
>>> if (flag) {}
>>>
>>> (Note the logic here is slightly different: the else block is
>>> executed when none of the previous blocks have been entered. Because
>>> conditionals may have different values at this point. But we don't
>>> know the proper spec.)
>>>
>>> This actually isn't too bad, but in that case, why do we even need
>>> this new feature?
>>>
>>> My main problem with it is that it is unintuitive and that its
>>> use-cases are limited. It's also likely to morph into something else
>>> when fir gets bored with it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> #define fir_switch _Bool flag = 1; {
>> #define or_if(...) } if (__VA_ARGS__) { flag = 0;
>> #define otherwise } if (!flag)
>>
>> Then Fir can write :
>>
>> fir_switch
>> or_if (x % 2 == 0) printf("\n divides by 2");
>> or_if (x % 3 == 0) printf("\n divides by 3");
>> otherwise printf("\n does not divide by 2 or 3");
>>
>> I haven't tested the defines, and I think it is a terrible idea (it
>> should at least be called "and_if"), but it comes very close to the
>> syntax and semantics Fir appears to want.
>>
>>
>
> totally no, its not also i want this i just makec conclusion if-else
> system is flawed
>
> you may ment it on some ways lik
>
> if {}
> or
> if {}
> else {}
>
> or
>
> case {}
> case {}
> otherwise {}
>
> in first case you got heneral system of logic operators applied to group
> of ifs (coz you may use not olny or but also and or not etc),
>
> in second you got like predefined keywords for "or or or" case
> (here in fact otherwise keyword means use or for cases and of 0
> evaluate otherwise)
>
> i thing you will nned a general but predefined may be also handy so
> eventually language could implement both (such as it has many forms for
> loops to increase intentions readability)
>
>
> flag is a nonsense its liek implementing else with flag
>
> int not = 1;
>
> if (a>2) {not =0; //...}
> if(not) {}
>
> ;C
>
> NOTE btw this case not only shows flaw in if rlse system but is just
> natural fom of switch (both of them i mean "if or if else" and "case
> case otherwise"..and imo thsi form is better than switch as its more
> natural its grounded -its also shows lacks of switch so it shows both
> if-else system is flawed and switch is flawed too
>
>
>
btw example for and
if(x>0) printf("right"); and if(x<w) printf("left"); else printf("
outside");
this if im not wrong will print
"right"
"right outside"
"left"
"left outside"
"right left"
if im not wrong also this you will not whow with normal if elses
of witch c switch wiyhout more complex code
(i not checked it though)
if so it just shows that small additions of or and and genarating that
usecases justify those additions and its omitions are kinda flaw in if
else system
you may rarely need that but there are cases when you may need that
so the lack of it its arrtificial (as if-else is not complete)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 09:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bpok0$1bmge$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403602 |
fir pisze:
> if(x>0) printf("right"); and if(x<w) printf("left"); else printf("
> outside");
this shows bytw one thing
such things as
if(x>0 and x<w) inside() else outside()
are limited becouse this reduces whole expresion in clase to one binary
so if you use such conventions as
if(x>0) and if(x<w)
of
if(x>0, x<w)
you gave more options to define predefined keywords like all/none/some/one
or even some my write its own function though as the function also
reduces it is then not possible in such case to do
if(x>0, x<w) all {} none {} some {}
it is add more branches at once
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 01:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11botqn$14bb7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403599 |
On 26/10/2026 22:37, David Brown wrote:
> On 26/10/2026 22:50, bartc wrote:
>> On 26/10/2026 21:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 10/26/2026 2:11 PM, bartc wrote:
>>>> On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
>>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>
>>>>>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or'
>>>>>> keyword to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real
>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way
>>>>> becouse there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed
>>>>> combinations generally with sole if 's and else's
>>>>>
>>>>> as was showed here
>>>> There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
>>>>
>>>> * To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
>>>> an existing language whose behaviour is well known
>>>>
>>>> * To highlight the problem areas
>>>>
>>>> For example:
>>>>
>>>> if (f1()) {}
>>>> if (f2()) {}
>>>> ...
>>>> if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
>>>>
>>>> Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
>>>> setting flags.
>>>
>>> So you call f1 and f2, then call if (!f1() && !f2()) {}. So, that is
>>> your choice. Not the fault of C, right?
>>
>> It's not the fault of C. But the C illustrates the logic of this new
>> feature: it must only call the 'else' clause when none of the
>> conditions are true.
>>
>> But if the most direct way of expressing it has this issue, then extra
>> workarounds are needed, for example:
>>
>> flag=1;
>> if f1() {flag=0;...)
>> if f2() {flag=0;...)
>> if (flag) {}
>>
>> (Note the logic here is slightly different: the else block is executed
>> when none of the previous blocks have been entered. Because
>> conditionals may have different values at this point. But we don't
>> know the proper spec.)
>>
>> This actually isn't too bad, but in that case, why do we even need
>> this new feature?
>>
>> My main problem with it is that it is unintuitive and that its use-
>> cases are limited. It's also likely to morph into something else when
>> fir gets bored with it.
>>
>>
>
> #define fir_switch _Bool flag = 1; {
> #define or_if(...) } if (__VA_ARGS__) { flag = 0;
> #define otherwise } if (!flag)
>
> Then Fir can write :
>
> fir_switch
> or_if (x % 2 == 0) printf("\n divides by 2");
> or_if (x % 3 == 0) printf("\n divides by 3");
> otherwise printf("\n does not divide by 2 or 3");
>
> I haven't tested the defines, and I think it is a terrible idea (it
> should at least be called "and_if"), but it comes very close to the
> syntax and semantics Fir appears to want.
It looks pretty good and it seems to work (the !flag needs the reverse
logic). The 'and_if' makes more sense too.
But of course it's not good enough for fir; there's always something.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 18:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11bovj7$14mv7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403603 |
On 10/26/2026 6:12 PM, bartc wrote:
> On 26/10/2026 22:37, David Brown wrote:
>> On 26/10/2026 22:50, bartc wrote:
>>> On 26/10/2026 21:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 10/26/2026 2:11 PM, bartc wrote:
>>>>> On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
>>>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or'
>>>>>>> keyword to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a
>>>>>>> real example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way
>>>>>> becouse there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed
>>>>>> combinations generally with sole if 's and else's
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as was showed here
>>>>> There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
>>>>>
>>>>> * To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
>>>>> an existing language whose behaviour is well known
>>>>>
>>>>> * To highlight the problem areas
>>>>>
>>>>> For example:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (f1()) {}
>>>>> if (f2()) {}
>>>>> ...
>>>>> if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
>>>>>
>>>>> Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
>>>>> setting flags.
>>>>
>>>> So you call f1 and f2, then call if (!f1() && !f2()) {}. So, that is
>>>> your choice. Not the fault of C, right?
>>>
>>> It's not the fault of C. But the C illustrates the logic of this new
>>> feature: it must only call the 'else' clause when none of the
>>> conditions are true.
>>>
>>> But if the most direct way of expressing it has this issue, then
>>> extra workarounds are needed, for example:
>>>
>>> flag=1;
>>> if f1() {flag=0;...)
>>> if f2() {flag=0;...)
>>> if (flag) {}
>>>
>>> (Note the logic here is slightly different: the else block is
>>> executed when none of the previous blocks have been entered. Because
>>> conditionals may have different values at this point. But we don't
>>> know the proper spec.)
>>>
>>> This actually isn't too bad, but in that case, why do we even need
>>> this new feature?
>>>
>>> My main problem with it is that it is unintuitive and that its use-
>>> cases are limited. It's also likely to morph into something else when
>>> fir gets bored with it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> #define fir_switch _Bool flag = 1; {
>> #define or_if(...) } if (__VA_ARGS__) { flag = 0;
>> #define otherwise } if (!flag)
>>
>> Then Fir can write :
>>
>> fir_switch
>> or_if (x % 2 == 0) printf("\n divides by 2");
>> or_if (x % 3 == 0) printf("\n divides by 3");
>> otherwise printf("\n does not divide by 2 or 3");
>>
>> I haven't tested the defines, and I think it is a terrible idea (it
>> should at least be called "and_if"), but it comes very close to the
>> syntax and semantics Fir appears to want.
> It looks pretty good and it seems to work (the !flag needs the reverse
> logic). The 'and_if' makes more sense too.
>
> But of course it's not good enough for fir; there's always something.
The never ending story?
https://youtu.be/lHytjEj7B9g?list=RDlHytjEj7B9g
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 09:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bpnsh$1ba6b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403603 |
bartc pisze:
> On 26/10/2026 22:37, David Brown wrote:
>> On 26/10/2026 22:50, bartc wrote:
>>> On 26/10/2026 21:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 10/26/2026 2:11 PM, bartc wrote:
>>>>> On 26/10/2026 20:32, fir wrote:
>>>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or'
>>>>>>> keyword to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a
>>>>>>> real example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way
>>>>>> becouse there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed
>>>>>> combinations generally with sole if 's and else's
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as was showed here
>>>>> There are a couple of reasons to express it in C:
>>>>>
>>>>> * To illustrate exactly how you want the semantics to work, via
>>>>> an existing language whose behaviour is well known
>>>>>
>>>>> * To highlight the problem areas
>>>>>
>>>>> For example:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (f1()) {}
>>>>> if (f2()) {}
>>>>> ...
>>>>> if (!f1() && !f2()) {}
>>>>>
>>>>> Here f1/f2 are called twice. This means making internal copies or
>>>>> setting flags.
>>>>
>>>> So you call f1 and f2, then call if (!f1() && !f2()) {}. So, that is
>>>> your choice. Not the fault of C, right?
>>>
>>> It's not the fault of C. But the C illustrates the logic of this new
>>> feature: it must only call the 'else' clause when none of the
>>> conditions are true.
>>>
>>> But if the most direct way of expressing it has this issue, then
>>> extra workarounds are needed, for example:
>>>
>>> flag=1;
>>> if f1() {flag=0;...)
>>> if f2() {flag=0;...)
>>> if (flag) {}
>>>
>>> (Note the logic here is slightly different: the else block is
>>> executed when none of the previous blocks have been entered. Because
>>> conditionals may have different values at this point. But we don't
>>> know the proper spec.)
>>>
>>> This actually isn't too bad, but in that case, why do we even need
>>> this new feature?
>>>
>>> My main problem with it is that it is unintuitive and that its use-
>>> cases are limited. It's also likely to morph into something else when
>>> fir gets bored with it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> #define fir_switch _Bool flag = 1; {
>> #define or_if(...) } if (__VA_ARGS__) { flag = 0;
>> #define otherwise } if (!flag)
>>
>> Then Fir can write :
>>
>> fir_switch
>> or_if (x % 2 == 0) printf("\n divides by 2");
>> or_if (x % 3 == 0) printf("\n divides by 3");
>> otherwise printf("\n does not divide by 2 or 3");
>>
>> I haven't tested the defines, and I think it is a terrible idea (it
>> should at least be called "and_if"), but it comes very close to the
>> syntax and semantics Fir appears to want.
> It looks pretty good and it seems to work (the !flag needs the reverse
> logic). The 'and_if' makes more sense too.
>
> But of course it's not good enough for fir; there's always something.
blame the scienco fo doing just like tat
(one solution is a solution untill you find better one) ..im just doing
science here so its science to blame, i got no problem with that
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 29 of 31 — ← Prev page 1 … 27 28 [29] 30 31 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web