Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #97546 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-26 12:49 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-12-01 12:33 +0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 567 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
absence of max fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 12:49 -0800
absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 15:34 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 00:21 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 04:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-11-27 13:54 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 13:54 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 07:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-27 14:06 +0100
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 17:47 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 07:13 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 15:35 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 07:48 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 07:53 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 00:14 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 00:36 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 02:03 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 23:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 21:05 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 16:53 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 08:07 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:37 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 08:26 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:42 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 08:16 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 09:31 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 10:38 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 10:59 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 12:09 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 12:46 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 13:05 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 13:50 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:52 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 05:44 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 15:12 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 06:54 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-30 10:37 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 03:07 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-30 13:28 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 05:12 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 18:57 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 11:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-28 20:09 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:55 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 10:06 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 11:18 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 10:28 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 10:49 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 10:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 11:40 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 12:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 15:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 18:30 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 18:49 +0000
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-29 14:09 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 10:56 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 11:29 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 20:27 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 20:31 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-30 10:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 12:54 -0800
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-29 16:21 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 21:47 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 21:30 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 14:12 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 22:27 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 22:33 +0000
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-29 14:52 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 15:43 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 23:51 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 00:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 02:08 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 18:10 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 12:29 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 21:30 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 13:47 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 14:59 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 15:13 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 00:12 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 01:11 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 18:01 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 02:19 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 13:26 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 17:09 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 00:01 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 00:29 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 17:02 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 01:21 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 17:53 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 23:11 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 02:12 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 11:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-29 09:46 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 15:45 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-29 17:04 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 07:21 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 15:50 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 00:19 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 00:43 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 01:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-29 22:26 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 11:25 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 09:07 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 14:22 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-30 09:03 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 23:38 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 15:49 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 00:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 17:22 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 01:40 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 18:03 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 17:25 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 23:29 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 23:55 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 10:05 +0100
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 11:20 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 11:41 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 13:48 +0100
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 10:43 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 21:23 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 14:41 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 09:39 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 11:35 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 14:51 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 15:05 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 10:49 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 20:48 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 16:51 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 01:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 23:57 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 11:38 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 13:28 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 00:06 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 20:02 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 02:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 21:42 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 01:56 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 21:25 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 02:33 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-03 15:20 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 15:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-02 21:57 +1300
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 10:46 -0500
Re: absence of max asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-30 06:36 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 16:41 +0000
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-30 20:50 +1300
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 11:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 12:00 +0000
Re: absence of max James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-30 11:32 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 19:25 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 20:45 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 12:52 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-30 14:17 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 10:14 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 07:37 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 17:05 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 10:06 -0800
Re: absence of max James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-01 13:53 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 12:22 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-01 19:02 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 10:05 +0100
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 11:01 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 17:28 +0100
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 21:13 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 10:53 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 11:51 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 12:52 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 14:28 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 14:48 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 15:00 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-01 19:28 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 10:30 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 07:24 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 10:50 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 09:39 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 10:17 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-02 11:46 -0800
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 15:02 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 11:58 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 13:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 15:31 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 13:34 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 19:32 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-03 01:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 20:48 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 02:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 21:27 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 02:50 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 22:45 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-03 11:07 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 15:46 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-03 13:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 23:29 +0000
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-03 18:42 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 23:59 +0000
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 08:31 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 13:51 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 22:08 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 20:19 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-04 01:28 +0000
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 14:34 +1300
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-05 00:02 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-05 10:34 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 08:38 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-05 15:52 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 16:03 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-03 19:19 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 11:26 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 11:33 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 15:48 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-04 00:59 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 20:23 -0500
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-03 10:32 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-03 17:15 +0100
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-03 08:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-03 11:08 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 21:31 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-04 08:40 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 19:39 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-05 07:15 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 16:09 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-05 13:38 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 14:12 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 22:21 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 22:05 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 10:46 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 09:45 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 13:25 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 10:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 16:25 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 15:10 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 20:48 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-07 14:43 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:26 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 11:32 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 21:56 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 20:28 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:10 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 21:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 20:00 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 22:51 -0500
Re: absence of max cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-12-10 04:44 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-05 22:49 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-05 15:24 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 22:25 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 22:24 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 22:47 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 10:51 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 10:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 16:26 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-07 02:09 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 09:30 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 01:44 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:29 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 21:54 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:05 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 11:39 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:16 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 16:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-09 21:07 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 22:58 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-10 17:49 +0100
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-09 16:46 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 22:56 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-10 14:04 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-10 08:45 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-10 14:54 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-11 23:13 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 17:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:13 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:02 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:47 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:38 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:43 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-17 13:52 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:00 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 09:58 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 16:39 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:48 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-18 16:51 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 11:54 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-19 21:24 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 17:38 -0500
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-19 15:11 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 19:12 -0500
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-19 17:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 21:41 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-17 09:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:49 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-18 08:26 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 11:56 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-19 19:19 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 17:40 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-10 18:03 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:44 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 01:19 -0600
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 21:52 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:02 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 12:59 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 22:29 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 04:12 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:44 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-06 06:10 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 10:58 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-06 10:21 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-06 10:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 16:28 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-07 02:48 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 09:34 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 06:58 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 15:15 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 12:30 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 16:25 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 13:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 13:53 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 14:03 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 14:50 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 13:44 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-14 22:12 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 17:00 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 14:08 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 17:28 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 17:29 -0500
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 14:49 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 16:24 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 17:04 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:29 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 13:37 -0800
Re: absence of max me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 14:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 02:19 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 02:07 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:36 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-08 16:22 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 10:52 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 08:11 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:08 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 12:50 -0800
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 10:14 +1300
Re: absence of max Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-12-08 22:17 +0100
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 10:21 +1300
Re: absence of max Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-12-08 22:24 +0100
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 13:06 +0100
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-09 21:15 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:05 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 03:22 -0600
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-10 15:12 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:57 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-12 00:13 -0600
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:48 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-10 14:11 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-11 23:18 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 17:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:18 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:48 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:39 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-17 11:27 -0800
People who confuse and jumble up the difference between past, present, and future (Was: absence of max) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-12-17 20:07 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:17 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:17 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:15 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 08:40 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 13:19 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 12:29 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 14:34 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:24 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 16:58 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:09 -0500
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-11 20:56 +1300
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-09 16:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 13:35 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 13:42 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 13:54 +0000
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:54 -0800
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 16:14 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 18:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-14 21:08 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:25 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:18 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 15:55 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:11 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:21 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 01:48 -0600
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 13:02 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:39 -0500
Re: absence of max cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-12-10 04:37 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-10 00:13 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 22:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:19 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-07 19:40 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:38 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 07:52 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 19:37 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 14:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-08 15:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-13 13:04 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-13 13:38 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-13 14:07 -0800
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-13 22:51 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-14 08:17 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-14 11:49 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-14 16:53 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 05:14 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-15 15:02 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-15 08:54 -0800
Re: absence of max raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-15 19:55 +0000
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 13:48 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-15 14:20 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 15:32 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-15 23:44 +0100
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 07:00 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-16 08:21 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 21:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-16 13:24 -0800
Re: absence of max "D. Aaron Sawyer" <aaron@110.net> - 2016-12-16 18:51 -0400
Re: absence of max raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-20 09:03 +0000
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-20 02:21 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-14 19:05 +0100
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-14 22:46 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 15:58 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 00:18 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-09 07:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-09 11:29 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 09:07 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 14:20 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 21:31 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:15 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 12:15 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:27 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 22:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-09 15:45 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:21 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:19 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 12:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:15 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 22:31 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 04:14 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:50 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 23:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:05 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-17 02:58 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:20 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 17:29 +0000
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:53 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 17:58 +0000
Re: absence of max cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-12-12 19:11 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-13 10:31 +0100
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-12 15:38 -0800
Re: absence of max raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-15 12:08 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:06 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:49 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:44 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:47 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 16:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:51 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-17 13:52 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:51 -0500
Re: absence of max Parity Error <kgf@quiscurat.net> - 2016-12-18 09:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:23 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 12:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 20:45 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:32 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 08:42 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 16:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:33 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 15:02 +0000
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-11 13:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:11 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 23:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 18:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 00:09 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 20:56 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 08:04 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:50 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-11 16:18 -0800
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-11 19:38 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 21:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:35 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 23:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-12 17:35 +1300
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:54 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 08:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 13:01 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 13:16 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 10:05 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 15:21 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:09 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-12 13:12 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:01 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 22:03 -0500
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-12 12:58 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:11 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:53 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:46 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:49 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:07 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 16:47 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:53 -0500
Re: absence of max Parity Error <kgf@quiscurat.net> - 2016-12-18 09:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:32 +0100
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-12 13:26 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 19:39 +0100
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-12 11:31 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:07 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 23:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 19:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 00:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 21:06 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 08:19 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 10:07 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 15:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:13 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-12 15:38 +0000
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 08:54 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 17:20 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 07:35 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 09:52 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 10:44 -0800
Re: absence of max James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-30 16:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 08:31 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 23:15 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:49 +0100
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 17:35 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 09:39 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 20:35 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 20:10 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 22:07 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 22:55 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 12:46 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 13:16 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 14:52 +0100
Re: absence of max jadill33@gmail.com - 2016-11-28 09:41 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 11:04 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 18:02 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 20:52 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 20:31 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 22:09 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 14:14 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 23:02 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-27 23:26 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 23:43 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-27 23:46 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 12:56 +0100
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-27 16:21 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 10:10 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> - 2016-11-27 07:40 -0500
absence of max asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-27 08:46 -0800
Re: absence of max fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 09:18 -0800
Re: absence of max asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-27 09:22 -0800
Re: absence of max fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 09:27 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 17:33 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 17:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-11-30 13:15 -0500
Re: absence of max "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 12:33 +0800
Page 20 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 … 29 Next page →
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 07:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <kfnr35fkce6.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #98500 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > >[...] >> Apropos of nothing at all, have you and Jerry ever considered >> going into business together? For example, you might do well >> running an ice cream parlour. > > "Bacarisse & Stuckle"? I can't see it caching on. It should be Bacarisse, Heathfield & Stuckle. How much cache were you thinking of offering? (j/k of course)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 16:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2jtuf$a99$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98704 |
On 10/12/16 15:54, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > >> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> >> [...] >>> Apropos of nothing at all, have you and Jerry ever considered >>> going into business together? For example, you might do well >>> running an ice cream parlour. >> >> "Bacarisse & Stuckle"? I can't see it caching on. > > It should be Bacarisse, Heathfield & Stuckle. Why? "Ben and Jerry" works. "Ben, Richard and Jerry" doesn't. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 18:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <877f76l4ig.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #98822 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > Why? "Ben and Jerry" works. "Ben, Richard and Jerry" doesn't. "You understand it better, but the frog dies"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 21:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <kfny3zhhj86.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #98822 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 10/12/16 15:54, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >> >>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >>> >>> [...] >>>> Apropos of nothing at all, have you and Jerry ever considered >>>> going into business together? For example, you might do well >>>> running an ice cream parlour. >>> >>> "Bacarisse & Stuckle"? I can't see it caching on. >> >> It should be Bacarisse, Heathfield & Stuckle. > > Why? "Ben and Jerry" works. "Ben, Richard and Jerry" doesn't. I have an odd sense of humor. Probably you should count yourself lucky if you didn't think it was funny, although it was meant to be. (And I hasten to add, only that and nothing else.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 10:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2eiaf$jh0$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98496 |
On 12/9/2016 8:35 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > >> Here's a fascinating story... >> >> On 09/12/16 03:15, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 12/8/2016 3:50 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>>> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 10:52:17 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> On 12/8/2016 10:22 AM, David Brown wrote: >>>>>> On 08/12/16 15:36, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/7/2016 9:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> <snip> >> >> BEN suggests that JERRY should provide some EVIDENCE for a claim that >> Jerry made. (The actual claim is lost in the mists of time. It hardly >> matters. The point is that Jerry made the claim, and he hasn't >> supported it.) > > Oh it's a doozy. I think it should be preserved forever! > > <big old snip> >> >> BEN helpfully provides links to two such manuals --- he doesn't have >> to do this, of course, since it is helping the case of his opponent in >> the discussion, but BEN is more interested in truth than in winning, >> so he courteously gives his opponent a helping hand: >> >>>>>> <http://aztecmuseum.ca/docs/index.htm> >>>>>> <http://www.tim-mann.org/misosys.html> > > Actually, those were posted by someone else (David, I think). I posted > some compiled output from a 1985 Microsoft compiler that contradicts > Jerry's claim, though it being rolled back from "every one of them" to > "IBM and Microsoft for two". No doubt it will contract further. > > <snip> > Not "rolled back" at all. You just have reading comprehension problems - as you once again proved. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 10:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2ehua$hru$3@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98458 |
On 12/9/2016 3:40 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > Here's a fascinating story... > > On 09/12/16 03:15, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/8/2016 3:50 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 10:52:17 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 12/8/2016 10:22 AM, David Brown wrote: >>>>> On 08/12/16 15:36, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>> On 12/7/2016 9:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> <snip> > > BEN suggests that JERRY should provide some EVIDENCE for a claim that > Jerry made. (The actual claim is lost in the mists of time. It hardly > matters. The point is that Jerry made the claim, and he hasn't supported > it.) > >>>>>>> You could post a link to a compiler manual that backs up your claim. >>>>>>> That way you would not have to make so many irrelevant personal >>>>>>> remarks. > > JERRY points out, some might think quite reasonably, that it's quite > difficult to find links for compiler manuals for the period in question, > which is the mid-1980s: > >>>>>> Gee, how many compiler manuals were even available in soft copy in >>>>>> 1985? >>>>>> How about ZERO? But I guess you'll now state that since none of >>>>>> them >>>>>> were available in soft copy, I'm wrong. > > <big old snip> > > BEN helpfully provides links to two such manuals --- he doesn't have to > do this, of course, since it is helping the case of his opponent in the > discussion, but BEN is more interested in truth than in winning, so he > courteously gives his opponent a helping hand: > >>>>> <http://aztecmuseum.ca/docs/index.htm> >>>>> <http://www.tim-mann.org/misosys.html> > > (I looked up both of these, and of course Ben is right, as we have come > to expect from him: they are both links to archived documentation from > 1980s C compilers.) > > And now let's look at JERRY's reaction: > >> I'm not going to bother to look for something that doesn't exist. You >> aren't that important to me. > > Isn't that a hoot? > Those aren't links to the manuals. They are links to websites. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 15:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2ek30$plq$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98523 |
On 09/12/16 15:18, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/9/2016 3:40 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> Here's a fascinating story... >> >> On 09/12/16 03:15, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 12/8/2016 3:50 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>>> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 10:52:17 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> On 12/8/2016 10:22 AM, David Brown wrote: >>>>>> On 08/12/16 15:36, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/7/2016 9:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> <snip> >> >> BEN suggests that JERRY should provide some EVIDENCE for a claim that >> Jerry made. (The actual claim is lost in the mists of time. It hardly >> matters. The point is that Jerry made the claim, and he hasn't supported >> it.) >> >>>>>>>> You could post a link to a compiler manual that backs up your claim. >>>>>>>> That way you would not have to make so many irrelevant personal >>>>>>>> remarks. >> >> JERRY points out, some might think quite reasonably, that it's quite >> difficult to find links for compiler manuals for the period in question, >> which is the mid-1980s: >> >>>>>>> Gee, how many compiler manuals were even available in soft copy in >>>>>>> 1985? >>>>>>> How about ZERO? But I guess you'll now state that since none of >>>>>>> them >>>>>>> were available in soft copy, I'm wrong. >> >> <big old snip> >> >> BEN helpfully provides links to two such manuals --- he doesn't have to >> do this, of course, since it is helping the case of his opponent in the >> discussion, but BEN is more interested in truth than in winning, so he >> courteously gives his opponent a helping hand: >> >>>>>> <http://aztecmuseum.ca/docs/index.htm> >>>>>> <http://www.tim-mann.org/misosys.html> >> >> (I looked up both of these, and of course Ben is right, as we have come >> to expect from him: they are both links to archived documentation from >> 1980s C compilers.) >> >> And now let's look at JERRY's reaction: >> >>> I'm not going to bother to look for something that doesn't exist. You >>> aren't that important to me. >> >> Isn't that a hoot? >> > > Those aren't links to the manuals. They are links to websites. ROTFL! -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 23:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2fv79$btk$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98539 |
On 12/9/2016 10:55 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 09/12/16 15:18, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/9/2016 3:40 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> Here's a fascinating story... >>> >>> On 09/12/16 03:15, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 12/8/2016 3:50 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 10:52:17 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 12/8/2016 10:22 AM, David Brown wrote: >>>>>>> On 08/12/16 15:36, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/7/2016 9:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> <snip> >>> >>> BEN suggests that JERRY should provide some EVIDENCE for a claim that >>> Jerry made. (The actual claim is lost in the mists of time. It hardly >>> matters. The point is that Jerry made the claim, and he hasn't supported >>> it.) >>> >>>>>>>>> You could post a link to a compiler manual that backs up your >>>>>>>>> claim. >>>>>>>>> That way you would not have to make so many irrelevant personal >>>>>>>>> remarks. >>> >>> JERRY points out, some might think quite reasonably, that it's quite >>> difficult to find links for compiler manuals for the period in question, >>> which is the mid-1980s: >>> >>>>>>>> Gee, how many compiler manuals were even available in soft copy in >>>>>>>> 1985? >>>>>>>> How about ZERO? But I guess you'll now state that since none of >>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>> were available in soft copy, I'm wrong. >>> >>> <big old snip> >>> >>> BEN helpfully provides links to two such manuals --- he doesn't have to >>> do this, of course, since it is helping the case of his opponent in the >>> discussion, but BEN is more interested in truth than in winning, so he >>> courteously gives his opponent a helping hand: >>> >>>>>>> <http://aztecmuseum.ca/docs/index.htm> >>>>>>> <http://www.tim-mann.org/misosys.html> >>> >>> (I looked up both of these, and of course Ben is right, as we have come >>> to expect from him: they are both links to archived documentation from >>> 1980s C compilers.) >>> >>> And now let's look at JERRY's reaction: >>> >>>> I'm not going to bother to look for something that doesn't exist. You >>>> aren't that important to me. >>> >>> Isn't that a hoot? >>> >> >> Those aren't links to the manuals. They are links to websites. > > ROTFL! > Yup, they are links to websites with a list of a few manuals for arcane products few people have ever heard of. They aren't even manuals for the C compilers I was discussing. So show us links to the compilers I was discussing - if your reading comprehension problem allows you to understand what those are. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 10:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2ei2p$hru$4@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98458 |
On 12/9/2016 3:40 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > Here's a fascinating story... > > On 09/12/16 03:15, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/8/2016 3:50 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 10:52:17 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 12/8/2016 10:22 AM, David Brown wrote: >>>>> On 08/12/16 15:36, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>> On 12/7/2016 9:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> <snip> > > BEN suggests that JERRY should provide some EVIDENCE for a claim that > Jerry made. (The actual claim is lost in the mists of time. It hardly > matters. The point is that Jerry made the claim, and he hasn't supported > it.) > >>>>>>> You could post a link to a compiler manual that backs up your claim. >>>>>>> That way you would not have to make so many irrelevant personal >>>>>>> remarks. > > JERRY points out, some might think quite reasonably, that it's quite > difficult to find links for compiler manuals for the period in question, > which is the mid-1980s: > >>>>>> Gee, how many compiler manuals were even available in soft copy in >>>>>> 1985? >>>>>> How about ZERO? But I guess you'll now state that since none of >>>>>> them >>>>>> were available in soft copy, I'm wrong. > > <big old snip> > > BEN helpfully provides links to two such manuals --- he doesn't have to > do this, of course, since it is helping the case of his opponent in the > discussion, but BEN is more interested in truth than in winning, so he > courteously gives his opponent a helping hand: > >>>>> <http://aztecmuseum.ca/docs/index.htm> >>>>> <http://www.tim-mann.org/misosys.html> > > (I looked up both of these, and of course Ben is right, as we have come > to expect from him: they are both links to archived documentation from > 1980s C compilers.) > > And now let's look at JERRY's reaction: > >> I'm not going to bother to look for something that doesn't exist. You >> aren't that important to me. > > Isn't that a hoot? > Oh, and I should add - neither of the sites have copies of either the Microsoft or IBM C compilers at the time - which are the ones I specifically mentioned. But then we also know you are too stoopid to know the difference. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 01:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <q2cn4ctt73b8gor0bt61fd235ur3ije2o6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #98443 |
On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 22:15:47 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote: >On 12/8/2016 3:50 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 10:52:17 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 12/8/2016 10:22 AM, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 08/12/16 15:36, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> On 12/7/2016 9:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>>>> You could post a link to a compiler manual that backs up your claim. >>>>>> That way you would not have to make so many irrelevant personal remarks. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gee, how many compiler manuals were even available in soft copy in 1985? >>>>> How about ZERO? But I guess you'll now state that since none of them >>>>> were available in soft copy, I'm wrong. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Soft-copy manuals were not unheard-of from that time, usually as plain >>>> text files. I don't have any myself from that era - I did not start >>>> professional C programming until about 1994 or 1995. >>>> >>> >>> Exactly which compilers had soft copies? >> >> Many compilers that didn't have manuals in soft copy when they first came out, >> do have soft copies now, because someone went to the trouble of making soft >> copies of the original hard-copy manual, usually decades later. >> > >Which compilers from 1985 have soft copies available? Who went to the >trouble of scanning the doc for a compiler several versions out of date? A scan of Bitsavers of a Lattice C compiler manual from 1982.: http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/lattice/Lattice_C_8086_1982.pdf Unfortunately the only thing from Microsoft in that collection is some CP/M documentation from 1978-1980. Bitsavers has tons of old stuff, almost everything scanned decades after the fact, by people wanting to preserve some history. Here's a directory of Univac 1101 documentation, circa 1948-1950: http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/univac/1101/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 13:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2e6dk$8vf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98375 |
On 08/12/16 16:52, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/8/2016 10:22 AM, David Brown wrote: >> On 08/12/16 15:36, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 12/7/2016 9:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> <snip> >>>> You could post a link to a compiler manual that backs up your claim. >>>> That way you would not have to make so many irrelevant personal remarks. >>>> >>> >>> Gee, how many compiler manuals were even available in soft copy in 1985? >>> How about ZERO? But I guess you'll now state that since none of them >>> were available in soft copy, I'm wrong. >>> >> >> Soft-copy manuals were not unheard-of from that time, usually as plain >> text files. I don't have any myself from that era - I did not start >> professional C programming until about 1994 or 1995. >> > > Exactly which compilers had soft copies? I had a couple of old compilers that at least had "cheat sheet" help files on disk, as plain text files. And some bigger toolchains that came with IDE's had built-in help files. The oldest C compiler I used would have been on SunOS 3 or 4, in about 1991, and I believe it had the reference manual included as "info" pages. > > They didn't - because on a PC, the only OS available was DOS, and you > could only do one thing at a time on it. Why are you restricting this to PC's and DOS? I don't think DOS would have been the main platform for C programming at that time. But even with DOS, toolchains often had IDE's that could at least display help files. And when you didn't have that, and had to exit your editor to run the compiler, you could equally well view a text file at that point. (Though clearly it was easier to use the dead tree format documentation for most purposes.) > Plus, printers at the time > were slow dot matrix on continuous-feed paper and would take several > minutes to print just one page. Printing a manual would take days. Dot matrix printers were not /that/ slow, nor were manuals /that/ big. > > Mainframes could have printed the manuals - but the compilers again came > with printed manuals. Programmers had entire rooms filled with three > ring binders of manuals. > >> It is also not difficult to find old manuals that have been scanned or >> otherwise copied to digital format, available on the net, such as here: >> > > Scanners were very expensive at the time, and pretty much limited to > mainframe systems. Additionally, .pdf and similar formats had not bee > invented, or if they were, were not commonly used. But the time > scanners became readily available, no one was real interested in > scanning hundreds of pages of out-of-date docs. Why do you think the 20-year old or 30-year old manuals had to be scanned 20 or 30 years ago? People take old manuals, and scan them in using /modern/ scanners to /modern/ file formats. > >> <http://aztecmuseum.ca/docs/index.htm> >> <http://www.tim-mann.org/misosys.html> >> >> I haven't looked at the details here, but I am sure that someone willing >> to document their claims about old compilers could have a look at these >> or other sites and come up with something relevant. >> > > Please feel free to do so. > I already know enough about these old compilers to fulfil my curiosity. I know how pre-prototype function declarations worked, and how they were used, and how people wrote their code - certainly enough for my curiosity, as I have no interest in reading, writing, compiling or maintaining such code. I also have an old first edition of K&R in my attic somewhere. Ben, Keith, James and others who have long experience with C, who are knowledgeable, honest, and have a solid reputation in this group, have explained about how pre-prototype function calls were handled. /You/ are the one who has made extraordinary claims that are at odds with everyone else. I have given you a couple of links that might help you give at least a hint of evidence for your case. But there is no need for /me/ to dig through these documents looking for information to demonstrate what others already understand - the onus is on you to back up your claims.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 10:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2ej41$mor$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98484 |
On 12/9/2016 7:02 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 08/12/16 16:52, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/8/2016 10:22 AM, David Brown wrote: >>> On 08/12/16 15:36, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 12/7/2016 9:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> <snip> >>>>> You could post a link to a compiler manual that backs up your claim. >>>>> That way you would not have to make so many irrelevant personal remarks. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Gee, how many compiler manuals were even available in soft copy in 1985? >>>> How about ZERO? But I guess you'll now state that since none of them >>>> were available in soft copy, I'm wrong. >>>> >>> >>> Soft-copy manuals were not unheard-of from that time, usually as plain >>> text files. I don't have any myself from that era - I did not start >>> professional C programming until about 1994 or 1995. >>> >> >> Exactly which compilers had soft copies? > > I had a couple of old compilers that at least had "cheat sheet" help > files on disk, as plain text files. And some bigger toolchains that > came with IDE's had built-in help files. The oldest C compiler I used > would have been on SunOS 3 or 4, in about 1991, and I believe it had the > reference manual included as "info" pages. > Yes, by 1991 companies were starting to put some manuals in soft copy. But not in 1985. >> >> They didn't - because on a PC, the only OS available was DOS, and you >> could only do one thing at a time on it. > > Why are you restricting this to PC's and DOS? I don't think DOS would > have been the main platform for C programming at that time. > It was more popular than Linux, which was expensive (even in 1991 Linux cost me over $1K US). And there were a lot more PC's out there than there were VAX's. > But even with DOS, toolchains often had IDE's that could at least > display help files. And when you didn't have that, and had to exit your > editor to run the compiler, you could equally well view a text file at > that point. (Though clearly it was easier to use the dead tree format > documentation for most purposes.) > Not in 1985. We're still talking floppies here. Most were still 360K, although 1.44M were slowly appearing. There were hard disks out there - typically around 5MB-10MB; larger were very expensive. And PC's were still limited to 640K total RAM. Plus tools still weren't very well developed. Yes, you could view a text file. But few editors could display two files at a time, especially if one were very big. >> Plus, printers at the time >> were slow dot matrix on continuous-feed paper and would take several >> minutes to print just one page. Printing a manual would take days. > > Dot matrix printers were not /that/ slow, nor were manuals /that/ big. > Good manuals had hundreds of pages. They were much more than man pages and had all kinds of information on the language as well as the library functions. And dot matrix printers took over one minute to print a full page. Yes, days is an exaggeration. But it would take a long time. >> >> Mainframes could have printed the manuals - but the compilers again came >> with printed manuals. Programmers had entire rooms filled with three >> ring binders of manuals. >> >>> It is also not difficult to find old manuals that have been scanned or >>> otherwise copied to digital format, available on the net, such as here: >>> >> >> Scanners were very expensive at the time, and pretty much limited to >> mainframe systems. Additionally, .pdf and similar formats had not bee >> invented, or if they were, were not commonly used. But the time >> scanners became readily available, no one was real interested in >> scanning hundreds of pages of out-of-date docs. > > Why do you think the 20-year old or 30-year old manuals had to be > scanned 20 or 30 years ago? People take old manuals, and scan them in > using /modern/ scanners to /modern/ file formats. > How many manuals from 1985 do you think still exist? And even if they did exist, who do you think cares - except maybe some archivist for the company that developed the software? >> >>> <http://aztecmuseum.ca/docs/index.htm> >>> <http://www.tim-mann.org/misosys.html> >>> >>> I haven't looked at the details here, but I am sure that someone willing >>> to document their claims about old compilers could have a look at these >>> or other sites and come up with something relevant. >>> >> >> Please feel free to do so. >> > > I already know enough about these old compilers to fulfil my curiosity. > I know how pre-prototype function declarations worked, and how they > were used, and how people wrote their code - certainly enough for my > curiosity, as I have no interest in reading, writing, compiling or > maintaining such code. I also have an old first edition of K&R in my > attic somewhere. Ben, Keith, James and others who have long experience > with C, who are knowledgeable, honest, and have a solid reputation in > this group, have explained about how pre-prototype function calls were > handled. > You only *think* you know something about old compilers. But once again you show you don't. > /You/ are the one who has made extraordinary claims that are at odds > with everyone else. I have given you a couple of links that might help > you give at least a hint of evidence for your case. But there is no > need for /me/ to dig through these documents looking for information to > demonstrate what others already understand - the onus is on you to back > up your claims. > > Nope, I just speak the truth - from years of experience. I know you and others think you know everything about C. But that's because all the real experts in the language have abandoned the bullshit that regularly gets promoted here. And now I understand why they did it. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 04:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2g0pj$j28$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #98530 |
So I hit the wrong arrow key again, and ended up reading one of Jerry's posts. In article <o2ej41$mor$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org>, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote: >On 12/9/2016 7:02 AM, David Brown wrote: >>[snip] >> >> Why are you restricting this to PC's and DOS? I don't think DOS would >> have been the main platform for C programming at that time. >> > >It was more popular than Linux, which was expensive (even in 1991 Linux >cost me over $1K US). I find that hard to believe. Linux was free, gratis, and freely available for download (and/or on floppies) ca 1991, having been released that year. Perhaps you meant *Unix*. But Unix and Linux are different operating systems: Linux was a clean-room reimplementation of many of the Unix ideas. >[snip a bunch more of Jerry's nonsense] > >Nope, I just speak the truth - from years of experience. I know you and >others think you know everything about C. But that's because all the >real experts in the language have abandoned the bullshit that regularly >gets promoted here. And now I understand why they did it. Does this mean that perhaps you will join them in abandoning comp.lang.c? - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 00:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2g2rg$kg2$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98657 |
On 12/9/2016 11:37 PM, Dan Cross wrote: > So I hit the wrong arrow key again, and ended up reading one of Jerry's > posts. > > In article <o2ej41$mor$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org>, > Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote: >> On 12/9/2016 7:02 AM, David Brown wrote: >>> [snip] >>> >>> Why are you restricting this to PC's and DOS? I don't think DOS would >>> have been the main platform for C programming at that time. >>> >> >> It was more popular than Linux, which was expensive (even in 1991 Linux >> cost me over $1K US). > > I find that hard to believe. Linux was free, gratis, and freely > available for download (and/or on floppies) ca 1991, having been > released that year. Perhaps you meant *Unix*. But Unix and > Linux are different operating systems: Linux was a clean-room > reimplementation of many of the Unix ideas. > Sorry, I did mean Unix. And even though Linux was a clean-room implementation, it pretty much carried over the same concepts. Both even had man pages and bash shells (or was it sh shell? Been too long - I don't remember exactly). I had very little trouble adjusting to Linux when I got it - much less than I had adjusting to Unix. >> [snip a bunch more of Jerry's nonsense] >> >> Nope, I just speak the truth - from years of experience. I know you and >> others think you know everything about C. But that's because all the >> real experts in the language have abandoned the bullshit that regularly >> gets promoted here. And now I understand why they did it. > > Does this mean that perhaps you will join them in abandoning > comp.lang.c? > > - Dan C. > Naw, there are still people here who want to learn the right way to do things. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 22:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87twae83eo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #98362 |
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: > On 12/7/2016 9:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: >> >>> On 12/6/2016 9:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: <snip> >>>>> If you >>>>> wanted the compiler to validate the parameters being past and convert if >>>>> necessary, you had to do it that way. >>>> >>>> No compiler that I used at the time did this. Not DMR's original PDP-11 >>>> compiler, not the BSD compiler from the original Sun workstations, not >>>> the Wicat compiler (anyone remember them?), and not the C compiler >>>> whose implementation team I was a (small) part of at the time. >>> >>> And you're an expert on every compiler, huh? ROFLMAO! >> >> Of course not. I only need to know what one did since you said "they >> all do". I gave you three I happen to know about. Given that you now >> need me to know about all compilers, can I take it that you've retracted >> the silly claim that they all did these extra argument conversions? > > Nope. I never said they all did. Now that's just not true. In Message-ID: <o26n42$5uh$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 10:58:08 -0500 You said: | Every one of them, if the function was defined before it was called. | And incompatible conversions would be flagged as errors. when supercat asked you say what compilers did the argument conversion you claimed they did. Anyway, I'm glad you now accept that not all of them did what you said. <snip> > Gee, how many compiler manuals were even available in soft copy in 1985? > How about ZERO? No, not zero. UNIX was supplied with soft copy manuals from the late 70s at least, including a document describing the internals of the C compiler. But even for other less forward-looking systems many manuals have been preserved. For example, I found the manual for the Wicat C compiler I used around 1984 and manuals for lots of IBM compilers are preserved in various places on the WWW. Better yet, the software is often also available. See my reply to your other post. If you ever come across some evidence, do post it. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 22:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2d7ph$m2r$3@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98425 |
On 12/8/2016 5:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: > >> On 12/7/2016 9:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: >>> >>>> On 12/6/2016 9:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: > <snip> >>>>>> If you >>>>>> wanted the compiler to validate the parameters being past and convert if >>>>>> necessary, you had to do it that way. >>>>> >>>>> No compiler that I used at the time did this. Not DMR's original PDP-11 >>>>> compiler, not the BSD compiler from the original Sun workstations, not >>>>> the Wicat compiler (anyone remember them?), and not the C compiler >>>>> whose implementation team I was a (small) part of at the time. >>>> >>>> And you're an expert on every compiler, huh? ROFLMAO! >>> >>> Of course not. I only need to know what one did since you said "they >>> all do". I gave you three I happen to know about. Given that you now >>> need me to know about all compilers, can I take it that you've retracted >>> the silly claim that they all did these extra argument conversions? >> >> Nope. I never said they all did. > > Now that's just not true. In > > Message-ID: <o26n42$5uh$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> > Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 10:58:08 -0500 > > You said: > > | Every one of them, if the function was defined before it was called. > | And incompatible conversions would be flagged as errors. > Yes - every one of them THAT I USED. More proof of your reading comprehension problems. > when supercat asked you say what compilers did the argument conversion > you claimed they did. > Yes - every one of them THAT I USED. More proof of your reading comprehension problems. > Anyway, I'm glad you now accept that not all of them did what you said. > > <snip> >> Gee, how many compiler manuals were even available in soft copy in 1985? >> How about ZERO? > > No, not zero. UNIX was supplied with soft copy manuals from the late > 70s at least, including a document describing the internals of the C > compiler. But even for other less forward-looking systems many manuals > have been preserved. For example, I found the manual for the Wicat C > compiler I used around 1984 and manuals for lots of IBM compilers are > preserved in various places on the WWW. > > Better yet, the software is often also available. See my reply to your > other post. If you ever come across some evidence, do post it. > > <snip> > Ok, show where that documentation exists. Not some nebulous website - the exact documentation for IBM and/or Microsoft C compilers from 1985. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 19:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e7ef357f-4780-4ccb-ac9c-f19c75e890ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #98261 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 9:34:19 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/6/2016 9:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: ... > >> If you > >> wanted the compiler to validate the parameters being past and convert if > >> necessary, you had to do it that way. > > > > No compiler that I used at the time did this. Not DMR's original PDP-11 > > compiler, not the BSD compiler from the original Sun workstations, not > > the Wicat compiler (anyone remember them?), and not the C compiler > > whose implementation team I was a (small) part of at the time. > > > > And you're an expert on every compiler, huh? ROFLMAO! Read for comprehension: he very explicitly listed the specific compilers he was claiming to have experience (NOT expertise) with. He said nothing to imply that he was an expert on every compiler. > ... But then you > didn't use any compilers at the time. You weren't even programming. He said that he did use the listed compilers at that time, so you're claiming he lied? On what basis? Just because his experience is inconsistent with your claims? > > None of them did anything more that what are now called the default > > argument promotions, and they would do that with or without a preceding > > definition and with or without a declaration in scope. > > > > Just more proof you have no idea. It's impossible for the compiler to > promote or convert parameters if it doesn't know the parameters the > compiler required. That's what you have when the function is defined > after the call. If it were in fact impossible, that would be very odd - because that's precisely what the C standard has always required a compiler to do when the only declaration in scope was a K&R style function declarations: "If the expression that denotes the called function has a type that does not include a prototype, the integer promotions are performed on each argument, and arguments that have type float are promoted to double. These are called the _default argument promotions_." (6.5.2.2p6) That's from the latest C standard, and Ben has already quoted the corresponding text from first edition of K&R itself. Of course, the key thing that made the default argument promotions feasible was that they depended only upon the type of the argument - the type of the corresponding parameter was irrelevant. You're so familiar with how function prototypes work that you've forgotten the semantics when function prototypes don't apply. Are you sure you actually wrote any code back before function prototypes were invented? If you had, you should have remembered those rules. If you didn't actually have such experience, that would help explain why you confuse "function declaration" with "function prototype", because nowadays almost all function declarations are function prototypes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 09:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2br6o$8dk$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98334 |
On 12/7/2016 10:40 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 9:34:19 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/6/2016 9:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: > ... >>>> If you >>>> wanted the compiler to validate the parameters being past and convert if >>>> necessary, you had to do it that way. >>> >>> No compiler that I used at the time did this. Not DMR's original PDP-11 >>> compiler, not the BSD compiler from the original Sun workstations, not >>> the Wicat compiler (anyone remember them?), and not the C compiler >>> whose implementation team I was a (small) part of at the time. >>> >> >> And you're an expert on every compiler, huh? ROFLMAO! > > Read for comprehension: he very explicitly listed the specific compilers he was > claiming to have experience (NOT expertise) with. He said nothing to imply that > he was an expert on every compiler. > >> ... But then you >> didn't use any compilers at the time. You weren't even programming. > > He said that he did use the listed compilers at that time, so you're claiming > he lied? On what basis? Just because his experience is inconsistent with your > claims? > >>> None of them did anything more that what are now called the default >>> argument promotions, and they would do that with or without a preceding >>> definition and with or without a declaration in scope. >>> >> >> Just more proof you have no idea. It's impossible for the compiler to >> promote or convert parameters if it doesn't know the parameters the >> compiler required. That's what you have when the function is defined >> after the call. > > If it were in fact impossible, that would be very odd - because that's > precisely what the C standard has always required a compiler to do when the > only declaration in scope was a K&R style function declarations: > > "If the expression that denotes the called function has a type that does not > include a prototype, the integer promotions are performed on each argument, and > arguments that have type float are promoted to double. These are called the > _default argument promotions_." (6.5.2.2p6) > > That's from the latest C standard, and Ben has already quoted the corresponding > text from first edition of K&R itself. > Of course, the key thing that made the default argument promotions feasible was > that they depended only upon the type of the argument - the type of the > corresponding parameter was irrelevant. You're so familiar with how function > prototypes work that you've forgotten the semantics when function prototypes > don't apply. > Are you sure you actually wrote any code back before function prototypes were > invented? If you had, you should have remembered those rules. If you didn't > actually have such experience, that would help explain why you confuse > "function declaration" with "function prototype", because nowadays almost all > function declarations are function prototypes. > I stand by my statement. The compiler will make default promotions. But that does not mean the promotions are correct. It can't even determine if the NUMBER of parameters passed is correct. And the default promotions may or may not be correct. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 07:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9c45c97c-5a79-4671-90e5-757d5fb40347@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #98363 |
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 8:38:40 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > I stand by my statement. The compiler will make default promotions. > But that does not mean the promotions are correct. It can't even > determine if the NUMBER of parameters passed is correct. And the > default promotions may or may not be correct. True. But until compilers supported prototypes that would often be just as true when a function definition was visible as when it wasn't. There may have been some compilers in the mid-1980s which would keep track of function parameter types and use them to adjust arguments, but that was not a commonplace situation, especially given that it was common and useful to pass fewer arguments than declared (since behavior would be defined provided functions only examined arguments that were passed, omitting arguments that wouldn't actually be used avoided needless inefficiency), or more arguments than declared (most implementations allowed functions to access arguments beyond those the compiler knew about, though the precise mechanisms varied).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 19:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87fuly9hz5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #98376 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes: > On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 8:38:40 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> I stand by my statement. The compiler will make default promotions. >> But that does not mean the promotions are correct. It can't even >> determine if the NUMBER of parameters passed is correct. And the >> default promotions may or may not be correct. > > True. But until compilers supported prototypes that would often be just as > true when a function definition was visible as when it wasn't. There may > have been some compilers in the mid-1980s which would keep track of function > parameter types and use them to adjust arguments, but that was not a > commonplace situation, I am surprised you even consider it a possibility. For one thing it goes against the explicit wording of the only language standard around at the time (K&R) but, worse, it would produce very fragile code. Just taking a function out into a separate translation unit and placing a corresponding declaration into a suitable header file would change the semantics of some (but all) calls to it. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 20 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 … 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web