Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #60096 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-04-15 11:46 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-04-30 01:40 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 318 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-15 11:46 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-04-15 19:55 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 02:00 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2015-04-15 13:19 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-04-16 13:08 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 02:25 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code pa@see.signature.invalid (Pierre Asselin) - 2015-04-16 01:01 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 02:37 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code pa@see.signature.invalid (Pierre Asselin) - 2015-05-01 02:07 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-01 04:29 -0700
Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-16 00:13 -0700
Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-16 00:34 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 02:46 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-30 05:54 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-01 04:37 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-01 11:48 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-02 23:59 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-08 20:52 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-08 16:15 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-09 16:14 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-03 09:11 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-16 00:19 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 02:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-30 20:14 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-01 05:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-01 06:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-03 09:17 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-16 11:01 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-16 04:26 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-04-16 13:19 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-17 09:20 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-17 08:21 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-17 15:04 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-17 06:18 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-04-17 12:24 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-04-17 15:58 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 04:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-30 13:47 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-30 13:48 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-30 16:35 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-04-30 10:00 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-01 06:25 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-02 15:53 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-03 10:42 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-04 09:41 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-05 07:01 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-06 09:34 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-06 04:33 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-06 13:51 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-07 11:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-07 21:49 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 13:22 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-06 15:27 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-06 09:11 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-06 21:00 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-07 00:20 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-06 10:43 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-06 13:11 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-06 19:48 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-07 11:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-07 12:26 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-07 16:52 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-07 20:22 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-08 02:56 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-08 10:53 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-07 18:30 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-08 09:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-08 11:06 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-09 09:31 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-10 08:01 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-09 13:13 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-10 08:51 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-09 16:45 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-07 13:28 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-06 19:36 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-06 22:13 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-07 11:56 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-07 14:16 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-07 11:43 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-07 12:02 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-07 13:36 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-07 15:09 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-07 17:13 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-07 18:07 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-08 11:35 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 11:41 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-11 13:59 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-10 10:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-10 10:50 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-10 19:09 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 04:54 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 13:19 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-12 05:26 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 08:31 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 16:40 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-20 10:28 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-10 11:39 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 05:33 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-07 17:59 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 09:20 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 09:37 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 09:40 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 09:46 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 09:53 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-11 13:47 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-11 20:04 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-11 12:39 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-05-12 07:34 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-12 10:58 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-11 21:00 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-11 21:18 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-11 23:37 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 00:07 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-11 16:52 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-12 01:19 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 01:43 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-12 11:00 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 12:33 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-12 13:25 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:01 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 08:26 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2015-05-14 19:58 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 20:15 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-21 07:25 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-21 08:50 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-25 02:06 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-25 09:25 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 07:35 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-10 15:53 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-10 10:20 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-10 16:30 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 10:49 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-07-10 11:19 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 07:47 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-13 20:20 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 02:57 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-07-13 12:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 03:21 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 17:35 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-15 18:46 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-15 11:35 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 08:47 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 21:24 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-21 08:43 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-21 13:26 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-21 22:11 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-22 04:03 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 02:30 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-22 07:14 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 08:24 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-21 23:39 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 11:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-23 07:35 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 06:36 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 07:25 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 08:44 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-10 16:53 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 08:57 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-23 06:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-23 16:07 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-23 19:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 06:25 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-24 12:24 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 22:49 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 12:49 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 22:56 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 09:07 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 17:29 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 08:52 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 19:45 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 04:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 17:50 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 08:48 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 03:21 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 21:30 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-26 11:30 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-26 16:16 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-26 23:04 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-30 15:15 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 09:12 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-12 17:28 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-12 11:09 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-12 11:43 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-12 05:16 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-12 05:34 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-12 22:52 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-21 03:45 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-21 12:53 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 11:01 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-21 20:18 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-21 21:47 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Kusalananda <kusalananda@example.com> - 2015-05-24 07:12 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 08:59 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 09:18 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-22 07:15 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 08:53 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-11 14:09 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2015-07-11 10:37 +0800
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 12:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-12 10:20 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 07:23 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code jadill33@gmail.com - 2015-05-11 13:30 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-11 21:56 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-11 23:14 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 08:15 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 16:38 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-12 11:38 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 17:58 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-12 13:44 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-12 11:32 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 11:14 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-21 03:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-21 08:41 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 18:12 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-24 19:20 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 08:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 11:35 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-10 14:54 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-10 15:10 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 20:51 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 13:22 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 20:47 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 17:05 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-11 11:04 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2015-07-11 18:06 +0800
Re: Readability part I - code Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-11 14:57 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 09:20 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 20:06 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 04:55 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-11 13:26 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 06:29 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-20 13:49 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-21 07:12 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-21 15:26 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-22 11:36 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 13:50 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 23:01 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 08:42 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 17:37 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-10 10:59 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 16:47 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-16 17:03 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-23 06:52 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 11:23 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-11 23:52 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-20 09:29 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-24 14:56 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 08:30 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 11:04 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-07-10 18:39 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-10 17:02 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-11 01:23 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-10 17:48 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 10:50 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 06:55 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 15:23 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 08:14 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 07:53 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 22:04 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 14:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-11 20:05 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 01:31 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 18:24 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 19:00 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-13 13:24 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-13 06:11 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 23:09 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-11 23:21 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-11 17:35 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 01:43 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-12 10:31 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-12 16:12 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-12 18:02 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-07-12 11:16 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-12 21:06 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 15:44 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 16:15 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 13:50 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 20:13 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 23:01 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-11 17:28 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 01:53 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-12 00:45 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 01:55 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-12 02:44 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-12 16:51 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 10:25 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 07:52 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-07-11 09:25 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 13:15 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-08 16:15 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 11:35 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-11 23:56 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 11:53 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 20:01 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-23 07:09 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:12 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-23 07:43 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-25 14:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-26 09:17 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 07:44 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 03:19 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-30 14:04 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-01 08:07 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-02 09:18 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-03 10:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-03 10:43 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-05-03 19:47 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-03 13:40 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-04 12:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-05 06:45 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-05 09:06 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-05 20:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-06 10:33 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-06 19:33 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-04-16 12:28 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 03:42 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 01:40 -0700
Page 7 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 16 Next page →
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-12 08:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87fv71g6kf.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #61893 |
raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>> Invariably? Take Pascal, for instance, which uses BEGIN and END in the
>> same way that C uses { and }. Do you write:
>>
>> IF foo THEN BEGIN
>> bar ;
>> baz ;
>> quux
>> END
>
> Yes.
>
> And the fact that you are _not allowed_ (not merely not required, but
> actually disallowed) to add that last ; bugs me enormously.
Actually a semicolon *is* allowed before an END. It's not allowed
before an ELSE. (One could argue that that's worse than simply
not allowing a semicolon before either END or ELSE.)
In Pascal, the semicolon is a statement separator, not a statement
terminator. Before an END, it separates the previous statement
from an emtpy statement. Before an ELSE, it creates two statements
where only one is allowed.
--
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 | Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-14 19:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn3vfsml9vk3.foe.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #61893 |
On 2015-05-12, Richard Bos <raltbos@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Invariably? Take Pascal, for instance, which uses BEGIN and END in the
>> same way that C uses { and }. Do you write:
>>
>> IF foo THEN BEGIN
>> bar ;
>> baz ;
>> quux
>> END
>
> Yes.
>
> And the fact that you are _not allowed_ (not merely not required, but
> actually disallowed) to add that last ; bugs me enormously.
Pascal has the <empty statement> which is a <simple statement> and
consists of no symbols and denotes no action. So the <compound statement>
BEGIN bar ; baz ; quux ; END
in fact _is_ allowed, there being an empty statement between the last ';'
and 'END'. The last semicolon is not required, and the line above is
semantically equivalent to
BEGIN bar ; baz ; quux END
When programming in Pascal (and some other languages) it's more
appropriate to regard the semicolon as a statement separator rather
than a statement terminator.
Just curious: does it bug you that, even in C, one is not allowed
to add that last '+' in
fun(a + b + c +)
?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-14 20:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mj2vpb$9lm$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #62017 |
Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> wrote:
(snip)
> Pascal has the <empty statement> which is a <simple statement> and
> consists of no symbols and denotes no action. So the <compound statement>
> BEGIN bar ; baz ; quux ; END
> in fact _is_ allowed, there being an empty statement between the last ';'
> and 'END'.
It seems that VHDL does not have this feature. Not so long ago, I put
an extra ; in about that place, it failed, and the error message
was not very useful.
> The last semicolon is not required, and the line above is
> semantically equivalent to
> BEGIN bar ; baz ; quux END
> When programming in Pascal (and some other languages) it's more
> appropriate to regard the semicolon as a statement separator rather
> than a statement terminator.
Yes. I learned that many years ago. PL/I and C have ; as a terminator.
It is most obvious in the IF/THEN/ELSE case.
> Just curious: does it bug you that, even in C, one is not allowed
> to add that last '+' in
> fun(a + b + c +)
Not so much. I do like that C allows:
int x[]={ 1, 2, 3, };
some other languages don't, even though in this case the , is
a separator.
-- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-21 07:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnk2w29fdk.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #61859 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 11/05/15 21:00, Bartc wrote: > >> With your preferred [Allman] brace style, there will be lots of >> extraneous vertical space introduced, depending on whether your >> 'else's follow on on the same line as the "}". > > Clearly you see the "extraneous" vertical space as a disadvantage. > I see it as an advantage. How is taking more vertical space an advantage? > It has the same visual benefit as an > empty line (and that visual benefit is very real, which is why > Usenauts put a blank line between paragraphs), but with the added > benefit that it's not empty. :-) To me, putting a on a character like open brace on a line intended as a spacing line adds distracting visual clutter; all cost, no benefit. Apparently your reaction is just the opposite. What about it is a benefit? Or what benefit would you say it provides?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-21 08:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b3722d5b-bffd-4ae4-982b-f4310ca170ab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #62407 |
On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 7:25:54 AM UTC-7, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>
> > On 11/05/15 21:00, Bartc wrote:
> >
> >> With your preferred [Allman] brace style, there will be lots of
> >> extraneous vertical space introduced, depending on whether your
> >> 'else's follow on on the same line as the "}".
> >
> > Clearly you see the "extraneous" vertical space as a disadvantage.
> > I see it as an advantage.
>
> How is taking more vertical space an advantage?
>
> > It has the same visual benefit as an
> > empty line (and that visual benefit is very real, which is why
> > Usenauts put a blank line between paragraphs), but with the added
> > benefit that it's not empty. :-)
>
> To me, putting a on a character like open brace on a line
> intended as a spacing line adds distracting visual clutter; all
> cost, no benefit. Apparently your reaction is just the opposite.
> What about it is a benefit? Or what benefit would you say it
> provides?
I had to use Wikipedia to get the right name. I prefer Python style
if (...) }
... }
else {
... }
and, in fact, while I am the only one watching, I write
if ...
...
else
...
and add the decoration when I approach the compiler.
I like my code to be as compact as possible. The only blank lines I allow
are between functions (or sets of global data declarations). These days,
as explained below, I collect all the local declarations (even those in
subordinate blocks) together at the start of a function. Then, with the
same indentation I write "//" on a line. Then code follows. This gives a
visual effect somewhat like a blank line but not so blank it breaks the
continuity.
It's a little OT for this thread but I collect all the declarations in
on place because I am thinking of them as a struct. I am thinking of the
function as having an associated data struct and no other local data. I
am also thinking of that struct as persistent so static variables can live
in the struct. There are some cases though where an overt static variable
must be used. The reasons for thinking this way involve threads and object
orientation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 02:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnwpzx58m3.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #62410 |
David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 7:25:54 AM UTC-7, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On 11/05/15 21:00, Bartc wrote:
>>>
>>>> With your preferred [Allman] brace style, there will be lots of
>>>> extraneous vertical space introduced, depending on whether your
>>>> 'else's follow on on the same line as the "}".
>>>
>>> Clearly you see the "extraneous" vertical space as a
>>> disadvantage. I see it as an advantage.
>>
>> How is taking more vertical space an advantage?
>>
>>> It has the same visual benefit as an empty line (and that visual
>>> benefit is very real, which is why Usenauts put a blank line
>>> between paragraphs), but with the added benefit that it's not
>>> empty. :-)
>>
>> To me, putting a on a character like open brace on a line
>> intended as a spacing line adds distracting visual clutter; all
>> cost, no benefit. Apparently your reaction is just the opposite.
>> What about it is a benefit? Or what benefit would you say it
>> provides?
>
> I had to use Wikipedia to get the right name. I prefer Python
> style
>
> if (...) }
> ... }
> else {
> ... }
>
> and, in fact, while I am the only one watching, I write
>
> if ...
> ...
> else
> ...
>
> and add the decoration when I approach the compiler.
>
> I like my code to be as compact as possible. [snip]
The point of my questions is not to find out what people
like or dislike but to find out what they find easy or hard
to read, and more significantly what the underlying forces
are that affect that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 09:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4709b760-ddcf-490c-9f53-acc78cb171ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #62586 |
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 2:06:54 AM UTC-7, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 7:25:54 AM UTC-7, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> >> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> >>
> >>> On 11/05/15 21:00, Bartc wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> With your preferred [Allman] brace style, there will be lots of
> >>>> extraneous vertical space introduced, depending on whether your
> >>>> 'else's follow on on the same line as the "}".
> >>>
> >>> Clearly you see the "extraneous" vertical space as a
> >>> disadvantage. I see it as an advantage.
> >>
> >> How is taking more vertical space an advantage?
> >>
> >>> It has the same visual benefit as an empty line (and that visual
> >>> benefit is very real, which is why Usenauts put a blank line
> >>> between paragraphs), but with the added benefit that it's not
> >>> empty. :-)
> >>
> >> To me, putting a on a character like open brace on a line
> >> intended as a spacing line adds distracting visual clutter; all
> >> cost, no benefit. Apparently your reaction is just the opposite.
> >> What about it is a benefit? Or what benefit would you say it
> >> provides?
> >
> > I had to use Wikipedia to get the right name. I prefer Python
> > style
> >
> > if (...) }
> > ... }
> > else {
> > ... }
> >
> > and, in fact, while I am the only one watching, I write
> >
> > if ...
> > ...
> > else
> > ...
> >
> > and add the decoration when I approach the compiler.
> >
> > I like my code to be as compact as possible. [snip]
>
> The point of my questions is not to find out what people
> like or dislike but to find out what they find easy or hard
> to read, and more significantly what the underlying forces
> are that affect that.
Duh. What's the difference?
People always defend what they like with sesible-sounding
rationalizations. I find the style I like much easier to read and write.
But another person might like something else. De gustibus.
I admit I am surprised nobody else uses Python style.
prop
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-10 07:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnvbds6pxb.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #62601 |
David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
> On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 2:06:54 AM UTC-7, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 7:25:54 AM UTC-7, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/05/15 21:00, Bartc wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> With your preferred [Allman] brace style, there will be lots of
>>>>>> extraneous vertical space introduced, depending on whether your
>>>>>> 'else's follow on on the same line as the "}".
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly you see the "extraneous" vertical space as a
>>>>> disadvantage. I see it as an advantage.
>>>>
>>>> How is taking more vertical space an advantage?
>>>>
>>>>> It has the same visual benefit as an empty line (and that visual
>>>>> benefit is very real, which is why Usenauts put a blank line
>>>>> between paragraphs), but with the added benefit that it's not
>>>>> empty. :-)
>>>>
>>>> To me, putting a on a character like open brace on a line
>>>> intended as a spacing line adds distracting visual clutter; all
>>>> cost, no benefit. Apparently your reaction is just the opposite.
>>>> What about it is a benefit? Or what benefit would you say it
>>>> provides?
>>>
>>> I had to use Wikipedia to get the right name. I prefer Python
>>> style
>>>
>>> if (...) }
>>> ... }
>>> else {
>>> ... }
>>>
>>> and, in fact, while I am the only one watching, I write
>>>
>>> if ...
>>> ...
>>> else
>>> ...
>>>
>>> and add the decoration when I approach the compiler.
>>>
>>> I like my code to be as compact as possible. [snip]
>>
>> The point of my questions is not to find out what people
>> like or dislike but to find out what they find easy or hard
>> to read, and more significantly what the underlying forces
>> are that affect that.
>
> What's the difference?
I prefer this
int i, j, k;
to this
int i;
int j;
int k;
and I prefer this
x = sometest() ? y : z;
to this
if(sometest()) x = y;
else x = z;
and I prefer this
int
is_prime( int n ){
int i;
for( i = 2; i < n; i++ ){
if( n%i == 0 ) return 0;
}
return 1;
}
to this
int is_prime( int n ){ int i; for( i = 2; i < n; i++ ){
if( n%i == 0 ) return 0; } return 1; }
The difference is, for the first two, even though I prefer one
over the other, I can read either alternative fairly easily,
whereas for the third comparison I find one easy to read and
the other nearly impossible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-10 15:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mnom70$o8t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #65112 |
On 10/07/15 15:35, Tim Rentsch wrote:
Um, I know this has nothing to do with the thread, but, uh...
>
> and I prefer this
>
> int
> is_prime( int n ){
> int i;
> for( i = 2; i < n; i++ ){
> if( n%i == 0 ) return 0;
> }
> return 1;
> }
...how sure are you about that function? It is saying that all negative
integers are prime, as are 0, 1, and 2... and *everything else* is
non-prime.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-10 10:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mnonok$uve$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #65114 |
On 7/10/2015 9:53 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 10/07/15 15:35, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
> Um, I know this has nothing to do with the thread, but, uh...
>
>>
>> and I prefer this
>>
>> int
>> is_prime( int n ){
>> int i;
>> for( i = 2; i < n; i++ ){
>> if( n%i == 0 ) return 0;
>> }
>> return 1;
>> }
>
> ...how sure are you about that function? It is saying that all negative
> integers are prime, as are 0, 1, and 2... and *everything else* is
> non-prime.
You sure? While it looks like it calls a number of non-primes, primes, I
don't see how it calls any primes, non-primes.
Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-10 16:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mnooc2$1oq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #65115 |
On 10/07/15 16:20, Martin Shobe wrote:
> On 7/10/2015 9:53 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 10/07/15 15:35, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>
>> Um, I know this has nothing to do with the thread, but, uh...
>>
>>>
>>> and I prefer this
>>>
>>> int
>>> is_prime( int n ){
>>> int i;
>>> for( i = 2; i < n; i++ ){
>>> if( n%i == 0 ) return 0;
>>> }
>>> return 1;
>>> }
>>
>> ...how sure are you about that function? It is saying that all negative
>> integers are prime, as are 0, 1, and 2... and *everything else* is
>> non-prime.
>
> You sure? While it looks like it calls a number of non-primes, primes, I
> don't see how it calls any primes, non-primes.
Yes, it's true, if you try hard enough you can interpret is_prime() == 0
as "is not guaranteed to be prime, but might be". Personally, if I were
to write a function to that spec, I'd call it something different.
In fact, we are more likely to find use for a function that returns a
value that indicates either "is not a prime" or "might be a prime". We
could call it something like MillerRabin().
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-10 10:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnvbdr7vi6.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #65114 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 10/07/15 15:35, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Um, I know this has nothing to do with the thread, but, uh...
>
>>
>> and I prefer this
>>
>> int
>> is_prime( int n ){
>> int i;
>> for( i = 2; i < n; i++ ){
>> if( n%i == 0 ) return 0;
>> }
>> return 1;
>> }
>
> ...how sure are you about that function? It is saying that all negative
> integers are prime, as are 0, 1, and 2... and *everything else* is
> non-prime.
No, it works correctly for integers greater than 1 (I just tried it).
--
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 | Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-10 11:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3009ac8f270ea9274c@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #65114 |
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> On 10/07/15 15:35, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
> Um, I know this has nothing to do with the thread, but, uh...
>
> >
> > and I prefer this
> >
> > int
> > is_prime( int n ){
> > int i;
> > for( i = 2; i < n; i++ ){
> > if( n%i == 0 ) return 0;
> > }
> > return 1;
> > }
>
> ...how sure are you about that function? It is saying that all negative
> integers are prime, as are 0, 1, and 2... and *everything else* is
> non-prime.
You were questioned on this, and you confirmed it, so presumably you
still don't think you made an error. Let's consider n = 3:
i = 2
i < n (true)
n%i == 0 (false)
i++
i < n (false)
return 1
Can you please explain why you think this function says 3 is non-prime?
(Note, the same analysis applies for other primes > 2.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-11 07:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfny4imzr7b.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #65114 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 10/07/15 15:35, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
> Um, I know this has nothing to do with the thread, but, uh...
>
>> and I prefer this
>>
>> int
>> is_prime( int n ){
>> int i;
>> for( i = 2; i < n; i++ ){
>> if( n%i == 0 ) return 0;
>> }
>> return 1;
>> }
>
> ...how sure are you about that function? It is saying that all
> negative integers are prime, as are 0, 1, and 2... and *everything
> else* is non-prime.
I agree the function results do not reflect primeness for
argument values less than 2. If you look again I think you
will see that is_prime() does accurately compute primeness
for argument values greater than 1.
(Some other ideas for responses came to me which I can't
resist sharing.)
<humor>
Oh, that bug was there deliberately - see how easy it is to
spot in the formatted version. :)
</humor>
<humor>
Yes, I shortened the function name to simplify the posting.
The original function name was is_prime_or_is_less_than_two().
</humor>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-13 20:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mo12v1$jbi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #65274 |
On 11/07/15 15:47, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>
>> On 10/07/15 15:35, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>
>> Um, I know this has nothing to do with the thread, but, uh...
>>
>>> and I prefer this
>>>
>>> int
>>> is_prime( int n ){
>>> int i;
>>> for( i = 2; i < n; i++ ){
>>> if( n%i == 0 ) return 0;
>>> }
>>> return 1;
>>> }
>>
>> ...how sure are you about that function? It is saying that all
>> negative integers are prime, as are 0, 1, and 2... and *everything
>> else* is non-prime.
>
> I agree the function results do not reflect primeness for
> argument values less than 2. If you look again I think you
> will see that is_prime() does accurately compute primeness
> for argument values greater than 1.
If I look again, I think I /will/ see that - much to my surprise.
Tim, my apologies for the noise.
In my defence (such as it is), it *looks* wrong.
The worst part (for me) is that I desk-checked it several times before
responding, and it gave the wrong result every time. Then I saw Keith's
response saying that he'd actually run it on an actual computer, and it
worked. So I ran it here, too, and it worked here too (for n = 3, the
only value I checked).
Ouch.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-15 02:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnfv4pu4js.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #65514 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 11/07/15 15:47, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On 10/07/15 15:35, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>
>>> Um, I know this has nothing to do with the thread, but, uh...
>>>
>>>> and I prefer this
>>>>
>>>> int
>>>> is_prime( int n ){
>>>> int i;
>>>> for( i = 2; i < n; i++ ){
>>>> if( n%i == 0 ) return 0;
>>>> }
>>>> return 1;
>>>> }
>>>
>>> ...how sure are you about that function? It is saying that all
>>> negative integers are prime, as are 0, 1, and 2... and *everything
>>> else* is non-prime.
>>
>> I agree the function results do not reflect primeness for
>> argument values less than 2. If you look again I think you
>> will see that is_prime() does accurately compute primeness
>> for argument values greater than 1.
>
> If I look again, I think I /will/ see that - much to my surprise.
>
> Tim, my apologies for the noise.
No problem. You did spot the problem with 0 and 1 (and negative
values), and next time the mistake might be mine rather than
yours. Please, keep swinging!
> In my defence (such as it is), it *looks* wrong.
>
> The worst part (for me) is that I desk-checked it several times before
> responding, and it gave the wrong result every time. Then I saw
> Keith's response saying that he'd actually run it on an actual
> computer, and it worked. So I ran it here, too, and it worked here too
> (for n = 3, the only value I checked).
>
> Ouch.
We've all been there, so no worries.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-13 12:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mo13ef$5bo$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #65274 |
>>> On 10/07/15 15:35, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>> Um, I know this has nothing to do with the thread, but, uh...
>>> and I prefer this
>>>
>>> int
>>> is_prime( int n ){
>>> int i;
>>> for( i = 2; i < n; i++ ){
>>> if( n%i == 0 ) return 0;
>>> }
>>> return 1;
>>> }
[...]
I am wondering what you think about this function:
_______________________________________________
unsigned int
is_prime(
unsigned int n
){
if (n < 2) return 0;
if (! (n % 2)) return (n == 2);
if (! (n % 3)) return (n == 3);
unsigned int m = (unsigned int)(std::sqrt(n));
for (unsigned int i = 5; i <= m; i += 6)
{
if (! (n % i) || ! (n % (i + 2)))
{
return 0;
}
}
return 1;
}
_______________________________________________
?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-15 03:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnbnfdu3ft.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #65515 |
"Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> writes:
>>>> On 10/07/15 15:35, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Um, I know this has nothing to do with the thread, but, uh...
>>>>
>>>> and I prefer this
>>>>
>>>> int
>>>> is_prime( int n ){
>>>> int i;
>>>> for( i = 2; i < n; i++ ){
>>>> if( n%i == 0 ) return 0;
>>>> }
>>>> return 1;
>>>> }
>
> [...]
>
> I am wondering what you think about this function:
> _______________________________________________
> unsigned int
> is_prime(
> unsigned int n
> ){
> if (n < 2) return 0;
>
> if (! (n % 2)) return (n == 2);
> if (! (n % 3)) return (n == 3);
> unsigned int m = (unsigned int)(std::sqrt(n));
>
> for (unsigned int i = 5; i <= m; i += 6)
> {
> if (! (n % i) || ! (n % (i + 2)))
> {
> return 0;
> }
> }
>
> return 1;
> }
> _______________________________________________
Obviously it's an improvement in terms of runtime efficiency.
Leaving aside low-level style factors (and ignoring the 'std::'
C++-ism), my main reservation is the use of sqrt() to find the
loop bound. Basically I don't trust my own ability to reason
about what happens when floating-point is involved (plus, rightly
or wrongly, converting to and from floating point feels
"expensive" to me - maybe that's just my prejudice, but there it
is). Testing only two candidates out of every six integers
helps. Have you thought about taking that one step further,
which would eliminate another 20% of trial divisions (ie, only 8
values per 30 rather than 10 values per 30)?
Here is my current favorite simple routine for doing primality
testing (shown with type 'unsigned' as a stand-in for what
probably should be uintmax_t):
int
is_prime( unsigned n ){
if( n < 32 ) return 024042424254 >> n & 1;
if( n % 2 == 0 ) return 0;
if( n % 3 == 0 ) return 0;
if( n % 5 == 0 ) return 0;
for( unsigned i = 0; i+7 <= n/(i+7); i += 30 ){
if( n % (i+ 7) == 0 ) return 0;
if( n % (i+11) == 0 ) return 0;
if( n % (i+13) == 0 ) return 0;
if( n % (i+17) == 0 ) return 0;
if( n % (i+19) == 0 ) return 0;
if( n % (i+23) == 0 ) return 0;
if( n % (i+29) == 0 ) return 0;
if( n % (i+31) == 0 ) return 0;
}
return 1;
}
Note incidentally that the bitmask for values less than 32 uses
octal to advantage, since two octal digits occupy six bits
which makes the pattern very regular (ie, with 6*n +/- 1 being
places where all primes greater than 5 occur).
Note also a decent optimizing compiler will "piggyback" the loop
test division onto the first modulo operation, so the division
done for the loop test often will happen nearly for free
rather than the cost of a full divide.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-15 17:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mo65l3$2fj$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #65611 |
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
(snip, someone wrote)
>> unsigned int
>> is_prime(
>> unsigned int n
>> ){
>> if (n < 2) return 0;
>>
>> if (! (n % 2)) return (n == 2);
>> if (! (n % 3)) return (n == 3);
>> unsigned int m = (unsigned int)(std::sqrt(n));
(snip)
> Obviously it's an improvement in terms of runtime efficiency.
> Leaving aside low-level style factors (and ignoring the 'std::'
> C++-ism), my main reservation is the use of sqrt() to find the
> loop bound.
Reminds me of my first IBM Fortran program, the sample in
the Fortran manual, which uses sqrt() to limit the loop
for prime testing. That was the first time I thought about
doing it that way.
Not so long before, I wrote a prime number program for an
HP 9810A calculator, which stored generated primes in memory,
and used those for testing. It seemed obvious enough to me
at the time.
> Basically I don't trust my own ability to reason
> about what happens when floating-point is involved (plus, rightly
> or wrongly, converting to and from floating point feels
> "expensive" to me - maybe that's just my prejudice, but there it
> is). Testing only two candidates out of every six integers
> helps. Have you thought about taking that one step further,
> which would eliminate another 20% of trial divisions (ie, only 8
> values per 30 rather than 10 values per 30)?
I would put a +1 in just to be sure that it rounds up and I
don't miss any trial divisors. IBM didn't in the sample, though.
The close case is a perfect square, which one might hope rounds
correctly, but I don't trust floating point, either.
> Here is my current favorite simple routine for doing primality
> testing (shown with type 'unsigned' as a stand-in for what
> probably should be uintmax_t):
(snip)
-- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-15 18:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mo666d$7jr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #65637 |
On 15/07/15 18:35, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: <snip> > I would put a +1 in just to be sure that it rounds up and I > don't miss any trial divisors. You won't, but yes, I'd put the +1 in as well, "to make assurance doubly sure" (I forget the source of that quote). > IBM didn't in the sample, though. > The close case is a perfect square, which one might hope rounds > correctly, but I don't trust floating point, either. The only truly close case is an absolutely enormous perfect square of a prime. It could happen, with bignums (but then you won't be using sqrt(), will you?). If you're dealing with native integer types, it won't be a problem. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web