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 11 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 29 Next page →
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 00:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <878trvi6od.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #97968 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:
> On 12/ 4/16 02:28 PM, BartC wrote:
>> On 04/12/2016 01:19, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>>> Gee, no shit, Sherlock. You miss the entire point.
>>>
>>> But that's pretty normal for you.
>>
>>
>> Why don't you just admit you were mistaken when you said, about bar and
>> boz in this code fragment when 'thing' is an array typedef:
>>
>>
>> int foo(thing bar)
>> {
>> thing boz;
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> that:
>>
>> > They will have exactly the same type.
>>
>> ?
>
> Because he never does. The closest he gets to admitting he is wrong
> will be a childish insult.
The good thing though is that the insult posts rarely contain any
further technical inaccuracies so there is not need to reply to them.
They mark the end of the thread in a very satisfactory way.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 10:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o23c7q$8qo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #97999 |
On 05/12/16 01:02, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 12/ 4/16 02:28 PM, BartC wrote:
>>> On 04/12/2016 01:19, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gee, no shit, Sherlock. You miss the entire point.
>>>>
>>>> But that's pretty normal for you.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why don't you just admit you were mistaken when you said, about bar and
>>> boz in this code fragment when 'thing' is an array typedef:
>>>
>>>
>>> int foo(thing bar)
>>> {
>>> thing boz;
>>> ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> that:
>>>
>>> > They will have exactly the same type.
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>> Because he never does. The closest he gets to admitting he is wrong
>> will be a childish insult.
>
> The good thing though is that the insult posts rarely contain any
> further technical inaccuracies so there is not need to reply to them.
> They mark the end of the thread in a very satisfactory way.
>
I would not say they end the thread in a satisfactory way, but they do
end it. I think it is a variation of Godwin's law.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 08:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o23qig$p2p$4@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98003 |
On 12/5/2016 4:34 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 05/12/16 01:02, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 12/ 4/16 02:28 PM, BartC wrote:
>>>> On 04/12/2016 01:19, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Gee, no shit, Sherlock. You miss the entire point.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that's pretty normal for you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you just admit you were mistaken when you said, about bar and
>>>> boz in this code fragment when 'thing' is an array typedef:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> int foo(thing bar)
>>>> {
>>>> thing boz;
>>>> ...
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> that:
>>>>
>>>> > They will have exactly the same type.
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>
>>> Because he never does. The closest he gets to admitting he is wrong
>>> will be a childish insult.
>>
>> The good thing though is that the insult posts rarely contain any
>> further technical inaccuracies so there is not need to reply to them.
>> They mark the end of the thread in a very satisfactory way.
>>
>
> I would not say they end the thread in a satisfactory way, but they do
> end it. I think it is a variation of Godwin's law.
>
No, it just means I get tired of trying to teach the pigs to sing. You
read the C standard. But you don't UNDERSTAND the language. That is
VERY obvious.
I've had programmers just out of college with a better understanding of
C than I find in this newsgroup.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 15:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o23us9$ah5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98005 |
On 05/12/16 14:38, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/5/2016 4:34 AM, David Brown wrote: >> On 05/12/16 01:02, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>> Because he never does. The closest he gets to admitting he is wrong >>>> will be a childish insult. >>> >>> The good thing though is that the insult posts rarely contain any >>> further technical inaccuracies so there is not need to reply to them. >>> They mark the end of the thread in a very satisfactory way. >>> >> >> I would not say they end the thread in a satisfactory way, but they do >> end it. I think it is a variation of Godwin's law. >> > > No, it just means I get tired of trying to teach the pigs to sing. You > read the C standard. But you don't UNDERSTAND the language. That is > VERY obvious. > But you never seem to get tired of your favourite expressions, no matter how immature they make you appear, and your cheery disposition and friendly nature is unaffected by your tiredness.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 16:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o24kkk$tnt$4@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98010 |
On 12/5/2016 9:52 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 05/12/16 14:38, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/5/2016 4:34 AM, David Brown wrote: >>> On 05/12/16 01:02, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: > >>>>> >>>>> Because he never does. The closest he gets to admitting he is wrong >>>>> will be a childish insult. >>>> >>>> The good thing though is that the insult posts rarely contain any >>>> further technical inaccuracies so there is not need to reply to them. >>>> They mark the end of the thread in a very satisfactory way. >>>> >>> >>> I would not say they end the thread in a satisfactory way, but they do >>> end it. I think it is a variation of Godwin's law. >>> >> >> No, it just means I get tired of trying to teach the pigs to sing. You >> read the C standard. But you don't UNDERSTAND the language. That is >> VERY obvious. >> > > But you never seem to get tired of your favourite expressions, no matter > how immature they make you appear, and your cheery disposition and > friendly nature is unaffected by your tiredness. > Yup, the pigs get very annoyed. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 19:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c630a88e-83f8-4472-b8b3-d7c5d714d7c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #97965 |
On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 8:19:44 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: ... > Gee, no shit, Sherlock. You miss the entire point. Ah - it's insult time. That means you have no counter-arguments - though you will claim it just means you don't want to bother arguing. I'm fully aware that you've still deluded yourself into believing you're correct - but starting up with the insults is the closest that you ever come to admitting that you're wrong, so I'll take it as such.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-04 11:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o21g0a$kak$4@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #97971 |
On 12/3/2016 10:19 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 8:19:44 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > ... >> Gee, no shit, Sherlock. You miss the entire point. > > Ah - it's insult time. That means you have no counter-arguments - though you will claim it just means you don't want to bother arguing. I'm fully aware that you've still deluded yourself into believing you're correct - but starting up with the insults is the closest that you ever come to admitting that you're wrong, so I'll take it as such. > Nope, it means I'm tired of trying to teach the pig to sing. And no, I don't admit I'm wrong when I'm not. Only when I am wrong. You and some others here can read the C Standard. But you don't UNDERSTAND the C standard. There is a HUGE difference. -- ================== 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 | 2016-12-03 11:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87a8cdjlhn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #97925 |
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
> On 12/2/2016 9:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> int foo(thing bar)
>> {
>> thing boz;
>> return &boz == &bar;
>> }
>
> Yes, because boz is of type int * const and bar is int *.
No. See upthread for the correct types.
> But they are
> both pointers to int and an array of int, and you can use either syntax
> with either one.
>
> Why is that so hard for you and Bart to understand?
It's easy to understand. What would be needed for you to believe that
two declared objects have different types? If the named objects in
question had the same types they would have the same size, the same
alignment requirements, both would be assignable (or both would not be)
and pointers to them would be of compatible types (in fact the pointers
would have the same types). All of these can be easily verified as false.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 15:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o1vava$gbj$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #97929 |
On 12/3/2016 6:33 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
>
>> On 12/2/2016 9:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> int foo(thing bar)
>>> {
>>> thing boz;
>>> return &boz == &bar;
>>> }
>>
>> Yes, because boz is of type int * const and bar is int *.
>
> No. See upthread for the correct types.
>
>> But they are
>> both pointers to int and an array of int, and you can use either syntax
>> with either one.
>>
>> Why is that so hard for you and Bart to understand?
>
> It's easy to understand. What would be needed for you to believe that
> two declared objects have different types? If the named objects in
> question had the same types they would have the same size, the same
> alignment requirements, both would be assignable (or both would not be)
> and pointers to them would be of compatible types (in fact the pointers
> would have the same types). All of these can be easily verified as false.
>
If it's so easy to understand, why do you and Bart have so much trouble
understanding it? Even my beginning C students understand such simple C
concepts. But it seems to be beyond your level of comprehension.
See my response to Bart for another example.
--
==================
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 | 2016-12-04 00:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87eg1oik4z.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #97954 |
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
> On 12/3/2016 6:33 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 12/2/2016 9:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> int foo(thing bar)
>>>> {
>>>> thing boz;
>>>> return &boz == &bar;
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Yes, because boz is of type int * const and bar is int *.
>>
>> No. See upthread for the correct types.
>>
>>> But they are
>>> both pointers to int and an array of int, and you can use either syntax
>>> with either one.
>>>
>>> Why is that so hard for you and Bart to understand?
>>
>> It's easy to understand. What would be needed for you to believe that
>> two declared objects have different types? If the named objects in
>> question had the same types they would have the same size, the same
>> alignment requirements, both would be assignable (or both would not be)
>> and pointers to them would be of compatible types (in fact the pointers
>> would have the same types). All of these can be easily verified as false.
>
> If it's so easy to understand, why do you and Bart have so much trouble
> understanding it? Even my beginning C students understand such simple C
> concepts. But it seems to be beyond your level of comprehension.
Here's where we are at now. You now accept (it seems) that the types
are /not/ the same because even you give them as being different: int
*const and int *. These are not even compatible types, let alone the
same type. It would be a step forward if you would at least agree that
the types are not "identical" as you originally claimed.
These two different types have the same size yet you know that sizeof
boz and sizeof bar are not the same. This should make it clear to you
that boz and bar can't have the types you say they do. (You've got the
type of bar right, it's the type of boz that's confusing you.)
Furthermore, whilst you are correct that boz will often be converted to
a pointer type, the type you give is wrong, even for these situations
since it's not converted to a const-qualified pointer type. This can be
verified with a simple _Generic selection or by trying to pass &boz to
a function that has an int *const * parameter.
Even correcting your mistake about the const qualifier, you can't pass
&boz to a function with an int ** parameter. How do you explain that?
And, mysteriously (to you) you /can/ pass &boz to a function that takes
an int (*)[4] argument. I can explain that very simply -- boz has type
int [4] so &boz has type int (*)[4], but how do you explain it?
It's hard to see how you could be more muddled.
> See my response to Bart for another example.
Here it is:
| char p[4] = "abc";
| char * q = "def";
|
| funca(char * p1) {
| char c1 = *p1;
| char c2 = p1[0];
| }
|
| funcb(char p2[]) {
| char c3 = *p2;
| char c4 = p3[0];
| }
p1, p2 and q all have the same type ("pointer to char"). p has type
"array of 4 char". Do you agree?
Only if you were to incorrectly claim that p and q (or p and p1 or p and
p2) had the same type could it be "another example". If you agree with
me about the types here, it's just an example of you being right.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 20:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o1vr49$53j$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #97964 |
On 12/3/2016 7:59 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
>
>> On 12/3/2016 6:33 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 12/2/2016 9:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> int foo(thing bar)
>>>>> {
>>>>> thing boz;
>>>>> return &boz == &bar;
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Yes, because boz is of type int * const and bar is int *.
>>>
>>> No. See upthread for the correct types.
>>>
>>>> But they are
>>>> both pointers to int and an array of int, and you can use either syntax
>>>> with either one.
>>>>
>>>> Why is that so hard for you and Bart to understand?
>>>
>>> It's easy to understand. What would be needed for you to believe that
>>> two declared objects have different types? If the named objects in
>>> question had the same types they would have the same size, the same
>>> alignment requirements, both would be assignable (or both would not be)
>>> and pointers to them would be of compatible types (in fact the pointers
>>> would have the same types). All of these can be easily verified as false.
>>
>> If it's so easy to understand, why do you and Bart have so much trouble
>> understanding it? Even my beginning C students understand such simple C
>> concepts. But it seems to be beyond your level of comprehension.
>
> Here's where we are at now. You now accept (it seems) that the types
> are /not/ the same because even you give them as being different: int
> *const and int *. These are not even compatible types, let alone the
> same type. It would be a step forward if you would at least agree that
> the types are not "identical" as you originally claimed.
>
> These two different types have the same size yet you know that sizeof
> boz and sizeof bar are not the same. This should make it clear to you
> that boz and bar can't have the types you say they do. (You've got the
> type of bar right, it's the type of boz that's confusing you.)
>
> Furthermore, whilst you are correct that boz will often be converted to
> a pointer type, the type you give is wrong, even for these situations
> since it's not converted to a const-qualified pointer type. This can be
> verified with a simple _Generic selection or by trying to pass &boz to
> a function that has an int *const * parameter.
>
> Even correcting your mistake about the const qualifier, you can't pass
> &boz to a function with an int ** parameter. How do you explain that?
> And, mysteriously (to you) you /can/ pass &boz to a function that takes
> an int (*)[4] argument. I can explain that very simply -- boz has type
> int [4] so &boz has type int (*)[4], but how do you explain it?
>
> It's hard to see how you could be more muddled.
>
>> See my response to Bart for another example.
>
> Here it is:
>
> | char p[4] = "abc";
> | char * q = "def";
> |
> | funca(char * p1) {
> | char c1 = *p1;
> | char c2 = p1[0];
> | }
> |
> | funcb(char p2[]) {
> | char c3 = *p2;
> | char c4 = p3[0];
> | }
>
> p1, p2 and q all have the same type ("pointer to char"). p has type
> "array of 4 char". Do you agree?
>
> Only if you were to incorrectly claim that p and q (or p and p1 or p and
> p2) had the same type could it be "another example". If you agree with
> me about the types here, it's just an example of you being right.
>
Ben, you are totally hopeless. I'm through trying to explain the basics
of C to you.
Get an education. Then maybe we can talk intelligently.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 10:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <f915e104-7148-f177-7df3-b0dc0573ed8e@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #97920 |
On 12/02/2016 09:11 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
>
>> On 12/2/2016 8:11 PM, BartC wrote:
>>> On 03/12/2016 00:32, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 12/2/2016 4:34 PM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Of course typedef is useful when applied to things that behave like
>>>>> value
>>>>> objects; I'm less convinced of the utility of the way it is defined for
>>>>> arrays. Given:
>>>>>
>>>>> int foo(thing bar)
>>>>> {
>>>>> thing boz;
>>>>> ...
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> it would seem logical that "bar" and "boz" should have the same type;
>>>>> even
>>>>> if use of [] syntax within a parameter list of whatever form would get
>>>>> reinterpreted as a pointer, that wouldn't imply that array types should
>>>>> sport that same behavior in cases which don't use that syntax.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They will have exactly the same type.
>>>
>>> Interesting. When I run the code below, I get this output:
>>>
>>> sizeof(bar) = 4
>>> sizeof(boz) = 16
>>>
>>> If they're exactly the same type, how do you explain this result?
>>>
>>> --------------------------------
>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>>
>>> typedef int thing[4];
>>>
>>> void foo(thing bar){
>>> thing boz;
>>>
>>> printf("sizeof(bar) = %d\n",sizeof bar);
>>> printf("sizeof(boz) = %d\n",sizeof boz);
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main(void) {
>>> thing x;
>>> foo(x);
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> Because both are of type int[] or int * const. You can use either
Jerry's explanation for the following results:
sizeof(bar) = 4
sizeof(boz) = 16
is that bar and boz both have the same type?
I'd recommend adding in sizeof(int*) and sizeof(int[4]) for comparison.
>> syntax with either bar or boz.
>
> No, bar has type int * and boz has type int [4].
I'd expect any reasonably normal person to accept that if bar and boz
have different sizes, it means they must have different types. This is
Jerry, however, so such rules don't apply.
C2011 adds a feature that allows us to check this directly (which won't
necessarily convince Jerry, either):
#include <stdio.h>
#define TYPE(a) _Generic(a, \
int*:"int *", int[4]:"int[4]", default:"other")
typedef int thing[4];
void foo(thing bar)
{
thing boz;
printf("%s:%s\n", "bar", TYPE(bar));
printf("%s:%s\n", "boz", TYPE(boz));
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
foo(&argc);
return 0;
}
Unfortunately, the compiler I currently have access to doesn't support
C2011. Therefore, I can't confirm whether I've used _Generic correctly,
nor can I confirm the results. Could someone who has a compiler that
does support _Generic() check this out?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 17:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o1ur0h$kmh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #97948 |
On 03/12/16 16:32, James R. Kuyper wrote:
> On 12/02/2016 09:11 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 12/2/2016 8:11 PM, BartC wrote:
>>>> On 03/12/2016 00:32, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>> On 12/2/2016 4:34 PM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Of course typedef is useful when applied to things that behave like
>>>>>> value
>>>>>> objects; I'm less convinced of the utility of the way it is
>>>>>> defined for
>>>>>> arrays. Given:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int foo(thing bar)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> thing boz;
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it would seem logical that "bar" and "boz" should have the same type;
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> if use of [] syntax within a parameter list of whatever form would
>>>>>> get
>>>>>> reinterpreted as a pointer, that wouldn't imply that array types
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> sport that same behavior in cases which don't use that syntax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They will have exactly the same type.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting. When I run the code below, I get this output:
>>>>
>>>> sizeof(bar) = 4
>>>> sizeof(boz) = 16
>>>>
>>>> If they're exactly the same type, how do you explain this result?
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------
>>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>>>
>>>> typedef int thing[4];
>>>>
>>>> void foo(thing bar){
>>>> thing boz;
>>>>
>>>> printf("sizeof(bar) = %d\n",sizeof bar);
>>>> printf("sizeof(boz) = %d\n",sizeof boz);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int main(void) {
>>>> thing x;
>>>> foo(x);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because both are of type int[] or int * const. You can use either
>
> Jerry's explanation for the following results:
>
> sizeof(bar) = 4
> sizeof(boz) = 16
>
> is that bar and boz both have the same type?
>
> I'd recommend adding in sizeof(int*) and sizeof(int[4]) for comparison.
>
>>> syntax with either bar or boz.
>>
>> No, bar has type int * and boz has type int [4].
>
> I'd expect any reasonably normal person to accept that if bar and boz
> have different sizes, it means they must have different types. This is
> Jerry, however, so such rules don't apply.
> C2011 adds a feature that allows us to check this directly (which won't
> necessarily convince Jerry, either):
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #define TYPE(a) _Generic(a, \
> int*:"int *", int[4]:"int[4]", default:"other")
>
> typedef int thing[4];
> void foo(thing bar)
> {
> thing boz;
> printf("%s:%s\n", "bar", TYPE(bar));
> printf("%s:%s\n", "boz", TYPE(boz));
> }
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> foo(&argc);
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> Unfortunately, the compiler I currently have access to doesn't support
> C2011. Therefore, I can't confirm whether I've used _Generic correctly,
> nor can I confirm the results. Could someone who has a compiler that
> does support _Generic() check this out?
I had a look using <https://godbolt.org>, but it looks like both get
printed as "int *". Maybe _Generic also turns arrays into int* like
parameter passing? I don't know the details of _Generic well enough to
tell.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 08:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2eb6d201-e900-4866-a8e2-e13c5a74a5bb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #97949 |
On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 11:15:35 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
> On 03/12/16 16:32, James R. Kuyper wrote:
...
> > C2011 adds a feature that allows us to check this directly (which won't
> > necessarily convince Jerry, either):
> >
> > #include <stdio.h>
> > #define TYPE(a) _Generic(a, \
> > int*:"int *", int[4]:"int[4]", default:"other")
> >
> > typedef int thing[4];
> > void foo(thing bar)
> > {
> > thing boz;
> > printf("%s:%s\n", "bar", TYPE(bar));
> > printf("%s:%s\n", "boz", TYPE(boz));
> > }
> >
> > int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> > {
> > foo(&argc);
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > Unfortunately, the compiler I currently have access to doesn't support
> > C2011. Therefore, I can't confirm whether I've used _Generic correctly,
> > nor can I confirm the results. Could someone who has a compiler that
> > does support _Generic() check this out?
>
> I had a look using <https://godbolt.org>, but it looks like both get
> printed as "int *". Maybe _Generic also turns arrays into int* like
> parameter passing? I don't know the details of _Generic well enough to
> tell.
"Except when it is the operand of the sizeof operator, the _Alignof operator, or the unary & operator, or is a string literal used to initialize an array, an expression that has type ‘‘array of type’’ is converted to an expression with type ‘‘pointer to type’’ that points to the initial element of the array object and is not an lvalue." (6.3.2.1p3)
I think there should also have been an exception for _Generic, but that's not what was actually done. Therefore, my suggestion is not as useful as I thought it would be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 11:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ln4m2k6dae.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #97950 |
jameskuyper@verizon.net writes:
> On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 11:15:35 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>> On 03/12/16 16:32, James R. Kuyper wrote:
> ...
>> > C2011 adds a feature that allows us to check this directly (which won't
>> > necessarily convince Jerry, either):
>> >
>> > #include <stdio.h>
>> > #define TYPE(a) _Generic(a, \
>> > int*:"int *", int[4]:"int[4]", default:"other")
>> >
>> > typedef int thing[4];
>> > void foo(thing bar)
>> > {
>> > thing boz;
>> > printf("%s:%s\n", "bar", TYPE(bar));
>> > printf("%s:%s\n", "boz", TYPE(boz));
>> > }
>> >
>> > int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>> > {
>> > foo(&argc);
>> >
>> > return 0;
>> > }
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, the compiler I currently have access to doesn't support
>> > C2011. Therefore, I can't confirm whether I've used _Generic correctly,
>> > nor can I confirm the results. Could someone who has a compiler that
>> > does support _Generic() check this out?
>>
>> I had a look using <https://godbolt.org>, but it looks like both get
>> printed as "int *". Maybe _Generic also turns arrays into int* like
>> parameter passing? I don't know the details of _Generic well enough to
>> tell.
>
> "Except when it is the operand of the sizeof operator, the _Alignof
> operator, or the unary & operator, or is a string literal used to
> initialize an array, an expression that has type ‘‘array of type’’ is
> converted to an expression with type ‘‘pointer to type’’ that points
> to the initial element of the array object and is not an lvalue."
> (6.3.2.1p3)
>
> I think there should also have been an exception for _Generic, but
> that's not what was actually done. Therefore, my suggestion is not as
> useful as I thought it would be.
But it can be made useful by taking the address of the operand:
#include <stdio.h>
#define TYPE(a) _Generic(&a, \
int**:"int *", int(*)[4]:"int[4]", default:"other")
typedef int thing[4];
void foo(thing bar)
{
thing boz;
printf("%s:%s\n", "bar", TYPE(bar));
printf("%s:%s\n", "boz", TYPE(boz));
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
foo(&argc);
return 0;
}
Output:
bar:int *
boz:int[4]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 21:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <871sxok8c5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #97948 |
"James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> On 12/02/2016 09:11 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 12/2/2016 8:11 PM, BartC wrote:
>>>> On 03/12/2016 00:32, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>> On 12/2/2016 4:34 PM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Of course typedef is useful when applied to things that behave like
>>>>>> value
>>>>>> objects; I'm less convinced of the utility of the way it is defined for
>>>>>> arrays. Given:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int foo(thing bar)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> thing boz;
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it would seem logical that "bar" and "boz" should have the same type;
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> if use of [] syntax within a parameter list of whatever form would get
>>>>>> reinterpreted as a pointer, that wouldn't imply that array types should
>>>>>> sport that same behavior in cases which don't use that syntax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They will have exactly the same type.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting. When I run the code below, I get this output:
>>>>
>>>> sizeof(bar) = 4
>>>> sizeof(boz) = 16
>>>>
>>>> If they're exactly the same type, how do you explain this result?
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------
>>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>>>
>>>> typedef int thing[4];
>>>>
>>>> void foo(thing bar){
>>>> thing boz;
>>>>
>>>> printf("sizeof(bar) = %d\n",sizeof bar);
>>>> printf("sizeof(boz) = %d\n",sizeof boz);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int main(void) {
>>>> thing x;
>>>> foo(x);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because both are of type int[] or int * const. You can use either
>
> Jerry's explanation for the following results:
>
> sizeof(bar) = 4
> sizeof(boz) = 16
>
> is that bar and boz both have the same type?
So it wold seem.
> I'd recommend adding in sizeof(int*) and sizeof(int[4]) for comparison.
>
>>> syntax with either bar or boz.
>>
>> No, bar has type int * and boz has type int [4].
>
> I'd expect any reasonably normal person to accept that if bar and boz
> have different sizes, it means they must have different types. This is
> Jerry, however, so such rules don't apply.
> C2011 adds a feature that allows us to check this directly (which
> won't necessarily convince Jerry, either):
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #define TYPE(a) _Generic(a, \
> int*:"int *", int[4]:"int[4]", default:"other")
>
> typedef int thing[4];
> void foo(thing bar)
> {
> thing boz;
> printf("%s:%s\n", "bar", TYPE(bar));
> printf("%s:%s\n", "boz", TYPE(boz));
> }
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> foo(&argc);
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> Unfortunately, the compiler I currently have access to doesn't support
> C2011. Therefore, I can't confirm whether I've used _Generic
> correctly, nor can I confirm the results. Could someone who has a
> compiler that does support _Generic() check this out?
_Generic tests for compatible types rather than identical types, and it
also uses the type of the expression and not the type of the object. To
see that the objects bar and boz have different types (using _Generic)
you'd need to use some other expression where array types are not
converted. For example
_Generic(&bar, int **: ..., int (*)[4]: ...);
_Generic(&boz, int **: ..., int (*)[4]: ...);
but, frankly, if the different sizes do not persuade someone, this won't
make much difference.
There are many way in which bar and boz are obviously of different types
but it's hard to know what might ever tip the balance. There's the fact
that the sizes are different, the fact that &bar and &boz are not
compatible types, the fact that the expression `bar' is an lvalue but
`boz' is not... Maybe he will be persuaded by C++ where you can test
directly:
int foo(thing bar)
{
thing boz;
return typeid(bar) == typeid(boz);
}
(You can also print typeid(bar).name() and typeid(boz).name(), but the
results, though clearly different to each other, are encoded (Pi and
A4_i for my version of g++).
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-04 08:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <71b11aaa-478e-4b1a-9411-e27093a58ab8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #97911 |
On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 6:32:45 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/2/2016 4:34 PM, supercat wrote: > > Yes, but were there any such compilers before the new syntax appeared in C++? > > That's what I said. The first version of C++ from AT&T Labs (Version > "E" for "Educational") was released to universities in 1986. it was > buggy and not fit for production; more of a "proof of concept". Several > C compilers already had support for the new syntax. (BTW - the first > production C++ compiler was released in 1987 - still buggy, but better. > In 1988 the first compiler that really could be used in production were > released). C++ and the first C compilers I've heard of with prototype support both came out in 1986, but I don't know exactly when within that year. Further, I don't know to when documentation of what C++ was going to be started to spread. Do you have any more precise dates for either of those things?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-04 19:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o22ct5$1c5$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #97984 |
On 12/4/2016 11:40 AM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 6:32:45 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/2/2016 4:34 PM, supercat wrote: >>> Yes, but were there any such compilers before the new syntax appeared in C++? >> >> That's what I said. The first version of C++ from AT&T Labs (Version >> "E" for "Educational") was released to universities in 1986. it was >> buggy and not fit for production; more of a "proof of concept". Several >> C compilers already had support for the new syntax. (BTW - the first >> production C++ compiler was released in 1987 - still buggy, but better. >> In 1988 the first compiler that really could be used in production were >> released). > > C++ and the first C compilers I've heard of with prototype support both > came out in 1986, but I don't know exactly when within that year. Further, > I don't know to when documentation of what C++ was going to be started to > spread. Do you have any more precise dates for either of those things? > As I said - the first C++ compiler (Version "E") came out was for educational use only - just a proof of concept. It was not ready for prime time, nor was it meant to be. The first commercial C++ compiler came out in 1987. Better, but still buggy. By 1988, C++ compilers were getting pretty good. C compiler support for function declarations came out about 1985, IIRC. My first compiler didn't have it around 1984, but it also wasn't necessarily the latest. Rather, it was the cheapest, since I wasn't doing any C programming at the time. Later I had to upgrade to a newer compiler (around 1986? I don't remember for sure now) because I was seeing more and more code which used the new method. When OS/2 1.0 came out in 1988, the IBM compiler supported function declarations. It wasn't the first compiler I used that supported it, but it is the first one I can nail down a time on. It was later that year that I started with C++, with a compiler that actually was a translator from C++ to C. You then compiled it with a C compiler. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 07:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <af553885-a583-4667-988b-837007e96758@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #98000 |
On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 6:39:24 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > C compiler support for function declarations came out about 1985, IIRC. > My first compiler didn't have it around 1984, but it also wasn't > necessarily the latest. Rather, it was the cheapest, since I wasn't > doing any C programming at the time. Later I had to upgrade to a newer > compiler (around 1986? I don't remember for sure now) because I was > seeing more and more code which used the new method. I wonder if those early compilers supported the syntax of putting qualifiers in brackets, or when that came about as a widely-recognized feature? Early compilers didn't have any qualifiers, and prior to "restrict" the only important qualifier one could attach to arguments (as opposed to the things they would point to) would have been "volatile", and that would only be necessary in rather obscure circumstances.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 16:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o24kuv$234$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98012 |
On 12/5/2016 10:15 AM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 6:39:24 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> C compiler support for function declarations came out about 1985, IIRC. >> My first compiler didn't have it around 1984, but it also wasn't >> necessarily the latest. Rather, it was the cheapest, since I wasn't >> doing any C programming at the time. Later I had to upgrade to a newer >> compiler (around 1986? I don't remember for sure now) because I was >> seeing more and more code which used the new method. > > I wonder if those early compilers supported the syntax of putting qualifiers > in brackets, or when that came about as a widely-recognized feature? Early > compilers didn't have any qualifiers, and prior to "restrict" the only > important qualifier one could attach to arguments (as opposed to the things > they would point to) would have been "volatile", and that would only be > necessary in rather obscure circumstances. > I honestly don't remember any more. What I do remember is ordering the source files in reverse of their call order - main() at the bottom and functions above it. Never call a function below you in the source file. And it became habit to load your file in the editor and immediately go to the end so you could find main(). This was due to the lack of function declarations. If you did it this way, the compiler would have the function definition before the function call, and could compare and, if necessary, convert the parameter type in the call to the one in the function. If you didn't have this, there was no comparison and all bets were off - the programmer had to ensure all calls matched the function definition. And, of course, for larger programs, this became even more awkward because you would end up with everything in one huge source file (or multiple source files, each including others, which caused other problems). That's why I remember function declarations so well. It made programming so much easier! :) -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web