Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #90018 > unrolled thread
| Started by | G G <gdotone@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-05 02:38 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-11-27 10:05 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 354 — 37 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 02:38 -0700
Re: double free Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-05 21:45 +1200
Re: double free Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-07-05 07:08 -0400
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:41 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-05 10:50 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-05 11:06 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-05 19:07 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-05 12:16 +0000
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-05 13:57 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-05 08:43 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-05 14:57 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-10 18:49 +0000
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 17:03 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-05 17:25 -0700
Re: double free Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2016-07-06 19:09 +0000
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-06 15:22 -0400
Re: double free Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-07-09 06:13 +0100
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 10:16 -0400
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-09 08:58 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 13:28 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 10:41 +0000
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-09 20:27 +0200
Re: double free "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-09 11:31 -0700
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 20:14 +0100
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-09 15:34 -0400
Re: double free jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-09 14:02 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 14:10 -0700
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 17:14 -0400
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 14:24 -0700
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 17:31 -0400
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-09 20:50 -0400
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 15:50 -0400
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-10 11:32 +0200
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-10 16:01 -0400
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-11 10:07 +0200
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-11 08:15 -0400
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 06:53 -0700
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-11 10:35 -0600
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 09:48 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 11:02 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 11:01 -0700
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-11 13:03 -0600
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 10:57 -0700
Re: double free albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-11-27 13:29 +0100
Re: double free Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-27 14:07 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-10 13:05 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-10 05:31 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-10 13:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-11 01:07 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 13:39 -0700
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-10 11:53 +0200
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-10 04:11 -0700
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-10 08:47 -0400
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-10 16:05 -0400
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-09 17:43 -0600
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 17:32 -0700
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-09 20:34 -0600
Re: double free Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2016-07-10 06:25 +0000
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-11 08:02 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 11:01 +0000
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 04:07 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 12:17 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 04:59 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 13:07 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 13:38 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 14:11 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 18:54 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 11:09 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 19:47 +0100
Re: double free Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-07-11 19:08 +0000
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-11 21:19 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 21:34 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 13:48 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-11 22:49 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 23:20 +0100
Re: double free Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 10:26 +0530
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 22:34 -0700
Re: double free Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-07-12 06:39 +0000
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 00:41 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 08:57 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 01:16 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 09:27 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 11:48 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 08:46 +0100
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 10:42 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 09:59 +0100
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 12:46 +0200
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:08 -0700
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 18:51 +0200
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 11:28 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 19:53 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-12 12:19 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 14:26 -0700
Re: double free Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-12 11:00 -0400
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 16:18 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 08:44 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 09:24 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 17:34 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 09:52 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:40 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 18:22 +0100
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 18:33 +0100
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-13 14:00 -0400
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 19:16 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 09:15 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 09:04 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-18 11:10 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-20 08:52 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-20 09:36 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-21 18:23 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 08:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 11:24 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 11:52 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 13:18 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 16:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 17:21 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:35 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 18:08 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 18:14 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 10:01 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-18 18:20 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-21 09:26 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-21 18:57 +0100
Re: double free Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 23:41 +0530
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 19:47 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-22 11:58 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 12:03 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 20:26 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 13:12 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 08:57 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 10:21 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-23 11:08 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 12:36 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-23 07:14 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 16:41 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:17 +0000
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-23 20:42 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:51 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 21:50 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 14:17 -0700
Re: double free luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 15:53 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 20:55 -0700
Re: double free luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 22:21 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 10:35 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-24 02:55 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-24 04:05 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-24 14:03 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 14:24 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 15:15 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 16:01 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-24 11:36 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 19:52 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-24 12:14 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 11:13 -0700
Re: double free Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 14:52 -0500
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-25 09:59 -0700
Re: double free Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 19:32 -0500
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-25 07:39 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 10:55 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 08:30 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-23 11:11 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:39 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 20:25 +0000
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 12:51 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-22 13:18 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 08:23 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 19:36 +0100
Re: double free albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-02 10:21 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 10:57 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-02 12:33 +0000
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 14:07 +0100
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 10:19 -0500
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-02 08:56 -0800
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 12:31 -0500
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-02 11:42 -0800
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-12 08:46 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:16 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 09:27 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 08:20 -0700
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-12 12:47 -0400
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-12 22:21 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 23:27 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 16:28 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 00:23 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 08:43 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 11:21 +0100
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-13 12:56 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 12:35 +0100
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-13 10:34 -0400
Re: double free Cal Dershowitz <cal@example.invalid> - 2016-07-15 05:57 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 11:17 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 04:30 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 12:33 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 13:41 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 13:57 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 06:10 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 20:08 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 15:11 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 18:14 +0100
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-13 19:20 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 18:24 +0100
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 00:51 -0500
Re: double free luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 02:18 -0700
Re: double free "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-15 07:12 -0500
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-15 13:14 +0100
Re: double free Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-18 09:28 +0200
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 18:43 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 20:15 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 21:14 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 13:24 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 21:50 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:21 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 13:02 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 21:34 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 13:51 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 22:22 +0100
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 01:08 -0500
Re: double free Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-07-15 17:33 +0800
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 05:02 -0700
Re: double free Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-07-15 21:15 +0800
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 14:48 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 08:02 -0700
Re: double free Cal Dershowitz <cal@example.invalid> - 2016-07-18 01:42 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-18 03:07 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 22:01 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 22:14 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 14:31 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 23:03 +0100
Re: double free "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-13 17:53 -0500
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-13 16:18 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 16:19 -0700
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-13 22:44 -0400
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-14 09:44 +0200
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 17:07 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-14 07:13 -0700
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 01:18 -0500
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-13 10:46 -0400
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 00:59 -0500
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-14 23:47 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 11:22 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 11:35 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 14:33 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 15:16 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 16:19 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 08:39 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 16:54 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 21:20 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 16:45 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 17:15 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 17:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 21:18 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 21:06 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 21:46 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 23:08 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-16 01:26 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 18:22 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 18:48 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 18:40 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 10:09 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 11:07 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 12:11 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 12:30 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 12:41 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 13:04 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 14:26 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-19 10:00 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 12:46 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 13:19 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 13:30 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 20:53 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 21:37 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 05:22 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-13 07:07 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 19:31 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-14 12:10 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 23:16 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-14 16:00 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-14 12:34 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 20:57 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-14 13:15 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 21:27 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-14 21:31 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 09:46 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 13:32 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 13:46 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 06:00 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 09:23 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 09:38 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 17:51 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 18:22 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 09:02 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 11:42 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 12:27 -0700
Re: double free Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-07-21 10:02 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-21 10:25 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-21 18:27 +0100
Re: double free Cal Dershowitz <cal@example.invalid> - 2016-07-29 00:42 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 08:59 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 15:22 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 15:59 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 16:39 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 16:55 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 17:49 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 18:20 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 19:03 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 19:22 +0100
sizeof (was Re: double free) Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-19 14:44 -0400
Re: sizeof (was Re: double free) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 12:31 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 22:46 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 15:19 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-20 00:21 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:21 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 12:08 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 09:41 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-21 18:10 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 11:23 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 03:40 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 10:33 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 12:47 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-12 22:18 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 10:53 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 21:20 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 13:56 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 22:39 +0100
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 10:57 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 21:58 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 13:23 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 13:00 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 10:44 -0700
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 19:10 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 20:22 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 21:11 +0100
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 21:49 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 22:01 +0100
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-11 09:09 -0400
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 14:16 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-15 13:51 +0000
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-15 12:04 -0400
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-11 17:51 +0200
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 10:19 +0000
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-05 08:57 -0600
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 11:13 -0400
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-05 09:05 -0700
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:38 -0700
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:34 -0700
Re: double free Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-07-06 04:10 +0100
Re: double free Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 21:27 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-06 02:53 -0700
Re: double free Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-06 06:09 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-06 07:53 -0700
Re: double free "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-06 01:25 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-06 11:12 +0100
Re: double free Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 09:52 -0800
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 10:05 -0800
Page 12 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 18 Next page →
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 14:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <878tx3qaf5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #90388 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:33:14 AM UTC+1, Reinhardt Behm wrote: >> Robert Wessel wrote: >> >> > Probably a couple more shift keys and some additional legends on the >> > keys would do the trick. Sort of what the old APL keyboards looked >> > like. Even if you take all the Greek letters and mathematical symbols >> > in Unicode, you've only got a few hundred characters to add. >> >> No please. I already have two Chinese characters in addition the normal US >> keyboard on each key. >> >> OTOH what market would there be for such keyboards? Those few programmers? >> So would have to spent several cento-bucks for such a kbd. >> > Any mathematician of scientist, as well as programmers. Scholars > would also want the Greek. Maybe you could use LCD technology to > adjust the legend on each key according to state. It would cost a bit > more than a normal keyboard, but I reckon you could knock one up for > about 30 dollars retail. Electronics prices have really come down, and > things don't cost so much now. Such things have been tried many times but they were always very expensive. There's a new start-up (Sonder) trying it with e-ink but they have no actual product yet. You could clean up if you could make one that sells at $30. (Limited versions, where a few special keys are programmable, are now used on some high-end laptops but that means we can't easily tell the actual cost of the technology as it's hidden in the laptop cost.) -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 08:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8882b9f6-1952-43f4-acce-0afec4e1ddb1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90394 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 2:48:54 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > Such things have been tried many times but they were always very > expensive. There's a new start-up (Sonder) trying it with e-ink but > they have no actual product yet. You could clean up if you could make > one that sells at $30. > > (Limited versions, where a few special keys are programmable, are now > used on some high-end laptops but that means we can't easily tell the > actual cost of the technology as it's hidden in the laptop cost.) > You can get a 16x2 LCD with 5x7 pixel cells for ten dollars. The cells are 3.55mm x 5.95mm. That's too small, you need about double those dimensions for a key legend. However I couldn't find any 1x1 arrays in a quick web search. But you can't just divide by 32, it would cost more. So yes, 30 dollars is a bit optimistic, but not wildly out of ballpark.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cal Dershowitz <cal@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-18 01:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dv3j2uF3nuqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90398 |
On 07/15/2016 08:02 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 2:48:54 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> >> Such things have been tried many times but they were always very >> expensive. There's a new start-up (Sonder) trying it with e-ink but >> they have no actual product yet. You could clean up if you could make >> one that sells at $30. >> >> (Limited versions, where a few special keys are programmable, are now >> used on some high-end laptops but that means we can't easily tell the >> actual cost of the technology as it's hidden in the laptop cost.) >> > You can get a 16x2 LCD with 5x7 pixel cells for ten dollars. The cells are > 3.55mm x 5.95mm. That's too small, you need about double those > dimensions for a key legend. However I couldn't find any 1x1 arrays in a > quick web search. But you can't just divide by 32, it would cost more. > > So yes, 30 dollars is a bit optimistic, but not wildly out of ballpark. > > > I spent $60 today on technology that I think can emulate that. You have to pay a premium in the shadows of the Cascades.... -- cal dershowitz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-18 03:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3f31f1f0-ecbe-45e7-ad35-44da5d026e08@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90500 |
On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 9:42:16 AM UTC+1, Cal Dershowitz wrote: > On 07/15/2016 08:02 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 2:48:54 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > >> > >> Such things have been tried many times but they were always very > >> expensive. There's a new start-up (Sonder) trying it with e-ink but > >> they have no actual product yet. You could clean up if you could make > >> one that sells at $30. > >> > >> (Limited versions, where a few special keys are programmable, are now > >> used on some high-end laptops but that means we can't easily tell the > >> actual cost of the technology as it's hidden in the laptop cost.) > >> > > You can get a 16x2 LCD with 5x7 pixel cells for ten dollars. The cells are > > 3.55mm x 5.95mm. That's too small, you need about double those > > dimensions for a key legend. However I couldn't find any 1x1 arrays in a > > quick web search. But you can't just divide by 32, it would cost more. > > > > So yes, 30 dollars is a bit optimistic, but not wildly out of ballpark. > > > > I spent $60 today on technology that I think can emulate that. You have > to pay a premium in the shadows of the Cascades.... > It's easy enough to switch a keyboard round so that the keys generate different codes for the computer depending on mode. The issue is how to present the keys to the user. We can probably say that the function keys, the modifier keys, the spacebar, and the numerical keypad keys are stable, as well as return. That leaves about 40 keys on an English keyboard you need to make soft. But I don't know if that would be acceptable for other languages. But you're looking at 40 1x1 robust display devices. You need a bit of tactile feedback to make a keyboard acceptable for serious use. The IPad approach of a single touch-sensitive screen is no good for entering large amounts of text.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 22:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87a8hls155.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #90348 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 13/07/16 21:02, Keith Thompson wrote: <snip> >> There are a number of languages that use ** as the >> exponentiation operator (Ada, Perl, Python, Ruby). And when I use >> those languages, the fact that ** means exponentation has never been >> a problem for me. > > Nor me. But it could just as well be &$& or )( or *! or @~ or _power_ > or just about anything else. So why **? I suspect it's mnemonic for "repeated multiplication". Why × never made it into early computer character repertoires (making * a reasonable second best) is a deeper mystery. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 22:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nm6b04$ua7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90352 |
On 13/07/2016 22:01, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > >> On 13/07/16 21:02, Keith Thompson wrote: > <snip> >>> There are a number of languages that use ** as the >>> exponentiation operator (Ada, Perl, Python, Ruby). And when I use >>> those languages, the fact that ** means exponentation has never been >>> a problem for me. >> >> Nor me. But it could just as well be &$& or )( or *! or @~ or _power_ >> or just about anything else. So why **? > > I suspect it's mnemonic for "repeated multiplication". Why × never made > it into early computer character repertoires (making * a reasonable > second best) is a deeper mystery. Maybe there weren't that many free character slots (We still don't have an official one for £ among printable ASCII.) Hyphen could double up for minus, and forward slash for divide. Plus needed to be added (missing on most typewriters). Adding also × would give a character that could only be used for multiply, and that looks like x (remember early dot matrix). Asterisk was more useful as it was dual purpose. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 14:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln37ndxm0t.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90352 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>> On 13/07/16 21:02, Keith Thompson wrote:
> <snip>
>>> There are a number of languages that use ** as the
>>> exponentiation operator (Ada, Perl, Python, Ruby). And when I use
>>> those languages, the fact that ** means exponentation has never been
>>> a problem for me.
>>
>> Nor me. But it could just as well be &$& or )( or *! or @~ or _power_
>> or just about anything else. So why **?
>
> I suspect it's mnemonic for "repeated multiplication". Why × never made
> it into early computer character repertoires (making * a reasonable
> second best) is a deeper mystery.
>
> <snip>
× is not in ASCII or EBCDIC, though that's probably an effect rather
than a cause.
A Google search turned up this quote attributed to Guy Steele:
Fortran was invented on accounting equipment. They were using
keypunches that had character sets designed for business use. There
was no multiplication symbol on a keypunch, so they settled on the
asterisk as a compromise.
I also wonder if the visual similarity with the letter 'x' was a factor
(though I think only upper case was used back then, which might have
made it less of a problem).
A mildly interesting tidbit: Perl uses the letter "x" as a repetition
operator:
$x = 3;
print 'x' x $x; # prints "xxx"
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 23:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <874m7tryaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #90355 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >>> On 13/07/16 21:02, Keith Thompson wrote: >> <snip> >>>> There are a number of languages that use ** as the >>>> exponentiation operator (Ada, Perl, Python, Ruby). And when I use >>>> those languages, the fact that ** means exponentation has never been >>>> a problem for me. >>> >>> Nor me. But it could just as well be &$& or )( or *! or @~ or _power_ >>> or just about anything else. So why **? >> >> I suspect it's mnemonic for "repeated multiplication". Why × never made >> it into early computer character repertoires (making * a reasonable >> second best) is a deeper mystery. >> >> <snip> > > × is not in ASCII or EBCDIC, though that's probably an effect rather > than a cause. > > A Google search turned up this quote attributed to Guy Steele: > > Fortran was invented on accounting equipment. They were using > keypunches that had character sets designed for business use. There > was no multiplication symbol on a keypunch, so they settled on the > asterisk as a compromise. Hmm... Early FORTRAN documentation (circa 1955) uses × for multiplication and ×× for exponentiation. > I also wonder if the visual similarity with the letter 'x' was a factor > (though I think only upper case was used back then, which might have > made it less of a problem). That might well have been a consderation, I agree, but it would have been possible to accentuate the difference in fonts used for programming in the same way that 1/I/l and O/0 are now well distinguished. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 17:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dunv3pFau78U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90356 |
"Ben Bacarisse" <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote in message news:874m7tryaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk... > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: > >> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >>>> On 13/07/16 21:02, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> <snip> >>>>> There are a number of languages that use ** as the >>>>> exponentiation operator (Ada, Perl, Python, Ruby). And when I use >>>>> those languages, the fact that ** means exponentation has never been >>>>> a problem for me. >>>> >>>> Nor me. But it could just as well be &$& or )( or *! or @~ or _power_ >>>> or just about anything else. So why **? >>> >>> I suspect it's mnemonic for "repeated multiplication". Why × never made >>> it into early computer character repertoires (making * a reasonable >>> second best) is a deeper mystery. >>> >>> <snip> >> >> × is not in ASCII or EBCDIC, though that's probably an effect rather >> than a cause. >> >> A Google search turned up this quote attributed to Guy Steele: >> >> Fortran was invented on accounting equipment. They were using >> keypunches that had character sets designed for business use. There >> was no multiplication symbol on a keypunch, so they settled on the >> asterisk as a compromise. > > Hmm... Early FORTRAN documentation (circa 1955) uses × for > multiplication and ×× for exponentiation. That's odd. I'm quite sure that there no computers in the USA that could print that symbol.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 16:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6e506ce7-3a63-44ae-9b37-3fd3222cde20@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90357 |
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 5:53:56 PM UTC-5, Osmium wrote: > > Hmm... Early FORTRAN documentation (circa 1955) uses × for > > multiplication and ×× for exponentiation. > > That's odd. I'm quite sure that there no computers in the USA that could > print that symbol. Computer sets weren't entirely standardized, and there are some fonts where asterisks have prominent diagonals, short horizontal strokes, and no vertical strokes; I wouldn't be surprised if there are some that omit the horizontal stroke altogether. I'd consider the distinction as being roughly analogous to the question of whether the boolean-or operation in C is represented by a broken-pipe or solid-pipe character. What matters is the logical character, and not its visual appearance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 16:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lny455w2g2.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90357 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
> "Ben Bacarisse" <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:874m7tryaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk...
>> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>>
>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>>>> On 13/07/16 21:02, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> There are a number of languages that use ** as the
>>>>>> exponentiation operator (Ada, Perl, Python, Ruby). And when I use
>>>>>> those languages, the fact that ** means exponentation has never been
>>>>>> a problem for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor me. But it could just as well be &$& or )( or *! or @~ or _power_
>>>>> or just about anything else. So why **?
>>>>
>>>> I suspect it's mnemonic for "repeated multiplication". Why × never made
>>>> it into early computer character repertoires (making * a reasonable
>>>> second best) is a deeper mystery.
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> × is not in ASCII or EBCDIC, though that's probably an effect rather
>>> than a cause.
>>>
>>> A Google search turned up this quote attributed to Guy Steele:
>>>
>>> Fortran was invented on accounting equipment. They were using
>>> keypunches that had character sets designed for business use. There
>>> was no multiplication symbol on a keypunch, so they settled on the
>>> asterisk as a compromise.
>>
>> Hmm... Early FORTRAN documentation (circa 1955) uses × for
>> multiplication and ×× for exponentiation.
>
> That's odd. I'm quite sure that there no computers in the USA that could
> print that symbol.
Confirmed. This document:
http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Fortran/102679231.05.01.acc.pdf
dated 1954, and titled as a "preliminary report", uses `×` and `××` for
multiplication and exponentiation. The `×` characters appear to be
hand-written. Speculation: The font used for the document didn't have a
multiplication symbol, so the multiplication symbols were hand-written
because the letter `x` has serifs. Since it's a preliminary report, the
authors might not yet have realized that the multiplication symbol would
be unavailable on the target system (IBM 704).
http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Fortran/102649787.05.01.acc.pdf
(dated 1956) uses "*" and "**".
Interestingly, the source code examples in the 1954 manual are mostly in
lower case; the 1956 manual uses all-caps.
(I don't know whether the multiplication symbols are going to be sent
correctly.)
--
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 | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 22:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nm6u9s$jo5$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #90356 |
On 7/13/2016 6:03 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: <snip> > > Hmm... Early FORTRAN documentation (circa 1955) uses × for > multiplication and ×× for exponentiation. > I don't know about 1955, but when I learned FORTRAN II around 1967, * was the multiplication symbol. <snip> -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 09:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87eg6wacjt.fsf@news.bourguet.org> |
| In reply to | #90356 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: > >> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >>>> On 13/07/16 21:02, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> <snip> >>>>> There are a number of languages that use ** as the >>>>> exponentiation operator (Ada, Perl, Python, Ruby). And when I use >>>>> those languages, the fact that ** means exponentation has never been >>>>> a problem for me. >>>> >>>> Nor me. But it could just as well be &$& or )( or *! or @~ or _power_ >>>> or just about anything else. So why **? >>> >>> I suspect it's mnemonic for "repeated multiplication". Why × never made >>> it into early computer character repertoires (making * a reasonable >>> second best) is a deeper mystery. >>> >>> <snip> >> >> × is not in ASCII or EBCDIC, though that's probably an effect rather >> than a cause. >> >> A Google search turned up this quote attributed to Guy Steele: >> >> Fortran was invented on accounting equipment. They were using >> keypunches that had character sets designed for business use. There >> was no multiplication symbol on a keypunch, so they settled on the >> asterisk as a compromise. > > Hmm... Early FORTRAN documentation (circa 1955) uses × for > multiplication and ×× for exponentiation. FORTRAN is from IBM which at that time was using BCDIC. None of the 6 or 7 versions of BCDIC given by MacKenzie in "Coded Character Sets, History and Development" has a ×. (BTW, BCDIC is a 6-bit character sets with two main variants, a commercial variant using &, #, @, %, (a square with rounded convex edges that MacKenzie calls "lozenge") and a scientific variants using +, =, ', (, ) for the same code points; printers had usually 48 characters on their chains, thus 26 upper case letters, 10 digits and 12 special characters including space) I'd not be surprised that they experimented printing with more adequate variant representation and more characters than available on the machines. Yours, -- Jean-Marc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 17:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f0bd795-144a-49e2-950e-7f0b876c591a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90352 |
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:01:51 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > I suspect it's mnemonic for "repeated multiplication". Why × never made > it into early computer character repertoires (making * a reasonable > second best) is a deeper mystery. > You only rarely see the x-like multiply or the two dots and dash divide symbol in post-school mathematical texts. Multiplication is signified by concatenation or, occasionally, a dot. Division by an underline or a negative exponent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 07:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <069b2084-dd3f-491f-a73d-6837a890db56@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90360 |
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 7:07:33 PM UTC-5, Malcolm McLean wrote: > You only rarely see the x-like multiply or the two dots and dash > divide symbol in post-school mathematical texts. Multiplication > is signified by concatenation or, occasionally, a dot. Division > by an underline or a negative exponent. To what extent was the slash used to indicate division in contexts other than fractions with integer literals on the top and bottom? Typeset documents would stack things vertically, and even people using typewriters would often do so if half-spacing was available. In the absence of half- spacing, colon-backspace-hyphen would generate a division sign, but I don't think any computer character set attempted to support such compositing of characters other than the the "digits" minus-one through minus-nine (which, if duplicated, will show up as letters J through R), or, for ASCII, composing rub-out with anything (yielding rub-out) or NUL with anything (yielding that same character).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 01:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <rjvgob93knq4hsqrugjapqp7683r4k80cf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #90352 |
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 22:01:42 +0100, Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > >> On 13/07/16 21:02, Keith Thompson wrote: ><snip> >>> There are a number of languages that use ** as the >>> exponentiation operator (Ada, Perl, Python, Ruby). And when I use >>> those languages, the fact that ** means exponentation has never been >>> a problem for me. >> >> Nor me. But it could just as well be &$& or )( or *! or @~ or _power_ >> or just about anything else. So why **? > >I suspect it's mnemonic for "repeated multiplication". Why × never made >it into early computer character repertoires (making * a reasonable >second best) is a deeper mystery. Lots of early machines had 6-bit characters, which wasn't even enough room for lowercase letters. And even on machines with bigger character sets (EBCDIC, for example, has had GTEQ and LTEQ symbols for a very long time, amongst other interesting things), many were attached to printers with even more restricted character sets. And even if that was changeable, you needed to own the more comprehensive print train, and then get it mounted when needed (the more restricted trains usually being faster for general printing). Needing the APL print train to get a program listing usually added hours to your compile turn-around, since the operators would never want to mount it until they had an adequate batch of print jobs needing it).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 10:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nm5k7f$80f$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #90325 |
On 7/13/2016 8:57 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 13/07/16 13:41, BartC wrote: >> On 13/07/2016 12:33, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 13/07/16 11:17, BartC wrote: >> >>>> All I'm saying is that it was a lousy design choice in C >>> >>> That seems to be all you ever say. But, although C will undoubtedly >>> change, it isn't going to change in the ways you want because the lousy >>> design choices you think you've identified make perfect sense to a lot >>> of C programmers. >> >> Until you come across a different language and all those 'sensible' >> choices seem to have been abandoned! > > In a different language, different choices might well make sense. That's > /why/ it's a different language. If each language made the same choices > as every other language, there'd only be one language! > >> So you have three choices: stop using C, keep using it >>> but shut up moaning, or keep moaning and get up everyone's nose. You >>> seem to be very fond of Option 3. >> >> One wonders how newer languages ever get off the ground when everyone >> simply accepts the limitations of an existing language and brushes any >> problems under the carpet. 'It's not a bug, it's a feature!' > > Newer languages get off the ground when someone who is scratching an > itch discovers that other people are itching in the same way. > >> I still think that using * for deference, for multiply and for >> 'pointer-to' was a bad idea. The fact that C isn't going to change that >> doesn't mean I'm completely wrong. > > In C, they work fine, and in C, you're completely wrong. You are, of > course, free to design your own language, in which you can make > different choices. Or you can choose some other language in which those > different choices have already been made for you. > I have to agree with Bart here. Yes, they do work. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea. There are lots of things which work but aren't good ideas. In this case, '*' is overloaded too much. I think it would have been better if K&R had picked a different operator for dereferencing. It would have made things easier, especially for new C programmers, who often have trouble with the distinction. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 00:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <4gugob9jk24ovphk6kb8l9365pf8fap1nc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #90324 |
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 13:41:30 +0100, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >One wonders how newer languages ever get off the ground when everyone >simply accepts the limitations of an existing language and brushes any >problems under the carpet. 'It's not a bug, it's a feature!' For the most part new languages *don't* get off the ground. And the reasons have little to do with the syntax of the language. Unless the language has some massive improvements in capabilities, or has some compelling use case and/or powerful patron (more-or-less the same thing - consider Objective-C and Apple or C# and MS), there's just no competing with an established language with mature implementations and tool chains, and availability of talent. It's just not worth the pain for a few small improvements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 23:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7a823332-a282-443a-92f7-e4b9714d4e31@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90380 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 6:57:53 AM UTC+1, robert...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 13:41:30 +0100, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > > >One wonders how newer languages ever get off the ground when everyone > >simply accepts the limitations of an existing language and brushes any > >problems under the carpet. 'It's not a bug, it's a feature!' > > > For the most part new languages *don't* get off the ground. And the > reasons have little to do with the syntax of the language. Unless the > language has some massive improvements in capabilities, or has some > compelling use case and/or powerful patron (more-or-less the same > thing - consider Objective-C and Apple or C# and MS), there's just no > competing with an established language with mature implementations and > tool chains, and availability of talent. It's just not worth the pain > for a few small improvements. > There are far too many computer languages. But I've added MiniBasic to the mix. It's closely based on BBC Basic, but without procs (nice to have, but they would have blown up the size of the interpeter, and an interpreter one person could understand and easily modify was a main design goal). I also got rid of the read / data system. It's just too bizarre and confusing. MiniBasic allows C-style array initialisations, which is a much more sensible way of getting data into programs, unless the script is in backing store and the computer is severely constrained in RAM, which might have been the original motivation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 11:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmadh5$f89$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90380 |
On 15/07/2016 06:59, Robert Wessel wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 13:41:30 +0100, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > >> One wonders how newer languages ever get off the ground when everyone >> simply accepts the limitations of an existing language and brushes any >> problems under the carpet. 'It's not a bug, it's a feature!' > > > For the most part new languages *don't* get off the ground. And the > reasons have little to do with the syntax of the language. Unless the > language has some massive improvements in capabilities, or has some > compelling use case and/or powerful patron (more-or-less the same > thing - consider Objective-C and Apple or C# and MS), there's just no > competing with an established language with mature implementations and > tool chains, and availability of talent. It's just not worth the pain > for a few small improvements. > Elsewhere I posed this problem: [supercat giving examples in Pascal:] >> If one wants an array of pointers to instances of FooStruct: >> Var arr: Array[0..99] of ^FooStruct; >> If one wants a pointer to an array of instances of FooStruct: >> Var arr: ^Array[0..99] of FooStruct; > (Exercise for those new to C: convert the last two examples into C > equivalents.) I'm not new to C but I thought I'd try this as I have trouble with this stuff. I knew that the two declarations were: FooStruct *Array1[100]; // (this is the array of pointers) FooStruct (*Array2)[100]; // (and this is pointer to array) but wasn't sure which was which (I later used cdecl to establish this as I noted in the comments). I was going to use trial and error to find which they were by trying to access an element and using the success or failure of compilation to tell me whether I was on the right track. The problem was, the access code worked exactly the same for each! FooStruct F; int i; F=*Array1[i]; F=*Array2[i]; F=(*Array1)[i]; F=(*Array2)[i]; So not only is there no obvious, easy way to remember how to write a pointer to array or array of pointers, but the language apparently allows either to be used interchangeably. Either this is a brilliant feature, or it's completely crazy! Given *A[i] or (*A)[i] or *(A[i]), any of these As can be an array of pointers, or a pointer to an array; you can't tell. Your comments suggest that it /wouldn't/ be enough of an improvement to have a new language where type declarations are totally straightforward and transparent. Well, I would be the first customer for such a language! -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web