Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #168724 > unrolled thread

greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit) - 2023-01-05 13:31 +0000
    Re: greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-01-05 07:10 -0800
    Re: greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-05 17:17 +0000
      Re: greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit) - 2023-01-06 16:41 +0000
        Re: greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-01-06 09:29 -0800
          Re: greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-06 20:01 +0100
          Re: greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2023-01-15 23:32 +0300
          Re: greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer Rob <invalid@invalid.net> - 2023-01-15 22:00 +0000
            Re: greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-01-15 15:03 -0800
              Re: greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-01-16 09:32 +0000
                Re: greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-16 12:25 +0000
                  Re: greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer Jan van den Broek <balglaas@dds.nl> - 2023-01-16 13:51 +0000
                  Whoooooosh!  (Was: greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-01-16 14:09 +0000
        Re: greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-06 17:32 +0000
    Re: greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-05 19:55 +0100
    Re: greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit) - 2023-01-05 20:28 +0000
    Re: greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-05 14:07 -0800
    Re: greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) - 2023-01-06 16:34 +0200
    Re: greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-01-08 05:21 -0800
      Re: greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-08 12:58 -0800
    Re: greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer Anand Hariharan <mailto.anand.hariharan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-09 04:51 -0800
      Re: greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-01-09 06:03 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#168724 — greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer

There may be one or two regulars left here who remember that,
once upon a time, I was a regular here, too, and had taken it
upon myself to maintain this newsgroup's FAQ list, now at
http://c-faq.com/.

But the last time I seriously updated the list was at the end of
2005, and for no particularly good reason, it has remained mostly
static since then.  But! For no particular reason (other than
that it's as good an idea as it's ever been), I am gearing up to
give the poor old thing some much-needed TLC.  I have recovered
the master sources (which were lost some years ago when Apple
reformatted my laptop without asking me) from deep backups,
I have confirmed that the thing still builds and matches what's
currently posted, I have gotten an account at eternal-september.org
so that I can actually post here again, and I am ready to announce
the effort.  So if you've thought the list was looking a little
long in the tooth, or if you've had any specific ideas for
improvement, now's your chance.  Or, if you just want to offer
some words of encouragement, those will be helpful, too!

In case you're curious, I'll list some specific areas of likely
improvement below.

Rather than trying to update everything at once, I think I'm
going to go a section at a time.  There are 20 sections, although
I don't have a timetable in mind for how long I might spend on
each of them, or anything.  On the assumption that there are some
number of people here who might want to participate, I'll solicit
suggestions for each section as I get to it.  Whether any given
suggestion turns out to be so obvious it'll go right in, or
warrant some email discussion, or warrant some newsgroup
discussion, remains to be seen.

And obviously I'm not going to reject a suggestion just because
it's for a section other than the one I happen to be working on,
so if you've got an idea that won't wait, send it!

I'd like to thank Keith Thompson for gently nudging me into this
revival after we crossed paths on Stack Overflow a little while
back.

Besides various freshenings-up, some likely more-significant
improvements include:

* Removal or minimizing of excessively dated material, such as
  MS-DOS system dependencies and ANSI versus "pre-ANSI" distinctions

* Updated information about the various versions of the Standard
  (including, ideally, a concise table of significant changes in
  each version)

* Updated information due to brand-new features in newer versions
  of the Standard: designated initializers, compound literals,
  _Generic, more emphasis on VLA's

* Some coverage of internationalization issues ("How can I
  printf special characters like ü, π, and 😀?")

* More about scanf, since *boy*, is it a stumbling block
  for newbies

* More about floating point, if for no other reason than that
  it's become a special interest of mine

* New questions that are now Frequent even though they were
  unheard of before, such as "Why an I getting 'implicit
  declaration of function is invalid' for this old code I'm
  trying to compile?", and "Why does printf("%d", 1.2) give me
  garbage?"  (The latter is, I believe, an interesting unintended
  consequence of the now-universal adoption of prototyped
  function calls: programmers who learned C since 1990 -- which
  is probably the majority of them by now! :-) -- just don't
  think about matching argument types to a called function's
  expectations the way we old farts do.)

This is all likely to take a while, and as I said I don't have a
specific timetable in mind, but at least now the idea is out here
in public for all to see. :-)

					Steve Summit
					scs@eskimo.com

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#168726

On Thursday, 5 January 2023 at 13:31:34 UTC, Steve Summit wrote:
> There may be one or two regulars left here who remember that, 
> once upon a time, I was a regular here, too, and had taken it 
> upon myself to maintain this newsgroup's FAQ list, now at 
> http://c-faq.com/. 
> 
> But the last time I seriously updated the list was at the end of 
> 2005, and for no particularly good reason, it has remained mostly 
> static since then. But! For no particular reason (other than 
> that it's as good an idea as it's ever been), I am gearing up to 
> give the poor old thing some much-needed TLC. I have recovered 
> the master sources (which were lost some years ago when Apple 
> reformatted my laptop without asking me) from deep backups, 
> I have confirmed that the thing still builds and matches what's 
> currently posted, I have gotten an account at eternal-september.org 
> so that I can actually post here again, and I am ready to announce 
> the effort. So if you've thought the list was looking a little 
> long in the tooth, or if you've had any specific ideas for 
> improvement, now's your chance. Or, if you just want to offer 
> some words of encouragement, those will be helpful, too! 
> 
> In case you're curious, I'll list some specific areas of likely 
> improvement below. 
> 
> Rather than trying to update everything at once, I think I'm 
> going to go a section at a time. There are 20 sections, although 
> I don't have a timetable in mind for how long I might spend on 
> each of them, or anything. On the assumption that there are some 
> number of people here who might want to participate, I'll solicit 
> suggestions for each section as I get to it. Whether any given 
> suggestion turns out to be so obvious it'll go right in, or 
> warrant some email discussion, or warrant some newsgroup 
> discussion, remains to be seen. 
> 
> And obviously I'm not going to reject a suggestion just because 
> it's for a section other than the one I happen to be working on, 
> so if you've got an idea that won't wait, send it! 
> 
> I'd like to thank Keith Thompson for gently nudging me into this 
> revival after we crossed paths on Stack Overflow a little while 
> back. 
> 
> Besides various freshenings-up, some likely more-significant 
> improvements include: 
> 
> * Removal or minimizing of excessively dated material, such as 
> MS-DOS system dependencies and ANSI versus "pre-ANSI" distinctions 
> 
> * Updated information about the various versions of the Standard 
> (including, ideally, a concise table of significant changes in 
> each version) 
> 
> * Updated information due to brand-new features in newer versions 
> of the Standard: designated initializers, compound literals, 
> _Generic, more emphasis on VLA's 
> 
> * Some coverage of internationalization issues ("How can I 
> printf special characters like ü, π, and 😀?") 
> 
> * More about scanf, since *boy*, is it a stumbling block 
> for newbies 
> 
> * More about floating point, if for no other reason than that 
> it's become a special interest of mine 
> 
> * New questions that are now Frequent even though they were 
> unheard of before, such as "Why an I getting 'implicit 
> declaration of function is invalid' for this old code I'm 
> trying to compile?", and "Why does printf("%d", 1.2) give me 
> garbage?" (The latter is, I believe, an interesting unintended 
> consequence of the now-universal adoption of prototyped 
> function calls: programmers who learned C since 1990 -- which 
> is probably the majority of them by now! :-) -- just don't 
> think about matching argument types to a called function's 
> expectations the way we old farts do.) 
> 
> This is all likely to take a while, and as I said I don't have a 
> specific timetable in mind, but at least now the idea is out here 
> in public for all to see. :-) 
> 
> Steve Summit 
> s...@eskimo.com
>
Welcome back Steve.
The FAQ is still pretty useful after all these years. But it could do with a refresh.
I'll look it over.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#168728

scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit) writes:

> There may be one or two regulars left here who remember that,
> once upon a time, I was a regular here, too, and had taken it
> upon myself to maintain this newsgroup's FAQ list, now at
> http://c-faq.com/.

I sure do.  Great to see you back.

> But the last time I seriously updated the list was at the end of
> 2005, and for no particularly good reason, it has remained mostly
> static since then.  But! For no particular reason (other than
> that it's as good an idea as it's ever been), I am gearing up to
> give the poor old thing some much-needed TLC.  I have recovered
> the master sources (which were lost some years ago when Apple
> reformatted my laptop without asking me) from deep backups,
> I have confirmed that the thing still builds and matches what's
> currently posted, I have gotten an account at eternal-september.org
> so that I can actually post here again, and I am ready to announce
> the effort.  So if you've thought the list was looking a little
> long in the tooth, or if you've had any specific ideas for
> improvement, now's your chance.  Or, if you just want to offer
> some words of encouragement, those will be helpful, too!

That's very good news.

What do you plan for the copyright status of the FAQ?

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#168743

Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> What do you plan for the copyright status of the FAQ?

I hadn't planned on making any changes to the current copyright
notice.  Has anyone found it problematic?

					Steve Summit
					scs@eskimo.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#168744

On Friday, 6 January 2023 at 16:41:17 UTC, Steve Summit wrote:
> Ben Bacarisse wrote: 
> > What do you plan for the copyright status of the FAQ?
> I hadn't planned on making any changes to the current copyright 
> notice. Has anyone found it problematic? 
> 
I recommend that you retain copyright so that the FAQ can be
published commercially again and benefit from a publisher's
marketing budget. However it's unlikely. A publisher told me that
he would publish Basic Algorithms, my "cookbook" if it were
rewritten in C++ or Javascript, but that he found he couldn't sell
books in C. Unfortunately I didn't have the time or the enthusiasm 
to rewrite it.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#168748

On 06/01/2023 18:29, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Friday, 6 January 2023 at 16:41:17 UTC, Steve Summit wrote:
>> Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> What do you plan for the copyright status of the FAQ?
>> I hadn't planned on making any changes to the current copyright
>> notice. Has anyone found it problematic?
>>
> I recommend that you retain copyright so that the FAQ can be
> published commercially again and benefit from a publisher's
> marketing budget. However it's unlikely. A publisher told me that
> he would publish Basic Algorithms, my "cookbook" if it were
> rewritten in C++ or Javascript, but that he found he couldn't sell
> books in C. Unfortunately I didn't have the time or the enthusiasm
> to rewrite it.
>   

The copyright notice at the moment appears to show that Steve owns the 
copyrights.

I think a bigger issue is the license, not the copyrights.  It is not 
entirely clear how the contents of the FAQ can be used.  In particular, 
"personal use" is a term that people interpret very differently.  Some 
people use it as distinct from "professional" or "commercial" use - in 
which case we hobby programmers could read the FAQ, but not professional 
developers.

I would recommend Steve discusses the status with his publisher, since 
they surely have contracts that affect licensing even if Steve has all 
the copyright ownerships.  If the publisher does not think it will lead 
to lower sales of the book, then maybe one of the creative commons 
licences would clarify things without too much effort being involved.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#168818

Malcolm McLean:

> A publisher told me that he would publish Basic
> Algorithms, my "cookbook" if it were rewritten in C++ or
> Javascript, but that he found he couldn't sell books in C.
> Unfortunately I didn't have the time or the enthusiasm to
> rewrite it.

I though it should be otherwise, because both JavaScript and
C++ will have most of those algorithms built-in, and because
it should seem easier to convert them from C to those newer
languages than back.

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail 
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#168819

On 06/01/2023 17:29, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> I recommend that you retain copyright so that the FAQ can be
> published commercially again and benefit from a publisher's
> marketing budget. However it's unlikely. A publisher told me that
> he would publish Basic Algorithms, my "cookbook" if it were
> rewritten in C++ or Javascript, but that he found he couldn't sell
> books in C. Unfortunately I didn't have the time or the enthusiasm
> to rewrite it.
>   

IOW you don't know enough about C++. I find it incredible when people 
say they don't have "the time or the enthusiasm
to rewrite it". Anybody who is sufficiently knowledgeable will always 
find the time and enthusiasm to do something. It becomes second nature.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#168821

On Sunday, 15 January 2023 at 22:02:25 UTC, Rob wrote:
> On 06/01/2023 17:29, Malcolm McLean wrote: 
> > I recommend that you retain copyright so that the FAQ can be 
> > published commercially again and benefit from a publisher's 
> > marketing budget. However it's unlikely. A publisher told me that 
> > he would publish Basic Algorithms, my "cookbook" if it were 
> > rewritten in C++ or Javascript, but that he found he couldn't sell 
> > books in C. Unfortunately I didn't have the time or the enthusiasm 
> > to rewrite it. 
> >
> IOW you don't know enough about C++. I find it incredible when people 
> say they don't have "the time or the enthusiasm 
> to rewrite it". Anybody who is sufficiently knowledgeable will always 
> find the time and enthusiasm to do something. It becomes second nature.
>
Have you written a book?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#168825

In article <a420f620-4c5a-43f2-8ad9-9f6bec0682cbn@googlegroups.com>,
Malcolm McLean  <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, 15 January 2023 at 22:02:25 UTC, Rob wrote:
>> On 06/01/2023 17:29, Malcolm McLean wrote: 
>> > I recommend that you retain copyright so that the FAQ can be 
>> > published commercially again and benefit from a publisher's 
>> > marketing budget. However it's unlikely. A publisher told me that 
>> > he would publish Basic Algorithms, my "cookbook" if it were 
>> > rewritten in C++ or Javascript, but that he found he couldn't sell 
>> > books in C. Unfortunately I didn't have the time or the enthusiasm 
>> > to rewrite it. 
>> >
>> IOW you don't know enough about C++. I find it incredible when people 
>> say they don't have "the time or the enthusiasm 
>> to rewrite it". Anybody who is sufficiently knowledgeable will always 
>> find the time and enthusiasm to do something. It becomes second nature.
>>
>Have you written a book?

Indeed.

His email address (invalid@invalid) describes his commentary.

-- 
   To be evangelical is to spend every waking moment hovering around
   two emotional states: fear and rage. Evangelicals are seriously the
   angriest and most vicious bunch of self-pitying, constantly-moaning
   whinybutts I've ever encountered.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#168826

On 16/01/2023 09:32, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <a420f620-4c5a-43f2-8ad9-9f6bec0682cbn@googlegroups.com>,
> Malcolm McLean  <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, 15 January 2023 at 22:02:25 UTC, Rob wrote:
>>> On 06/01/2023 17:29, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>> I recommend that you retain copyright so that the FAQ can be
>>>> published commercially again and benefit from a publisher's
>>>> marketing budget. However it's unlikely. A publisher told me that
>>>> he would publish Basic Algorithms, my "cookbook" if it were
>>>> rewritten in C++ or Javascript, but that he found he couldn't sell
>>>> books in C. Unfortunately I didn't have the time or the enthusiasm
>>>> to rewrite it.
>>>>
>>> IOW you don't know enough about C++. I find it incredible when people
>>> say they don't have "the time or the enthusiasm
>>> to rewrite it". Anybody who is sufficiently knowledgeable will always
>>> find the time and enthusiasm to do something. It becomes second nature.
>>>
>> Have you written a book?
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> His email address (invalid@invalid) describes his commentary.
> 

That's fairly common. I use such an address because I don't want the 
spammers harvesting my address and sending me ****. I imagine you get 
quite a bit.

Andy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#168827

2023-01-16, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> schrieb:
> On 16/01/2023 09:32, Kenny McCormack wrote:

[Schnipp]

>> His email address (invalid@invalid) describes his commentary.
>> 
>
> That's fairly common. I use such an address because I don't want the 
> spammers harvesting my address and sending me ****. I imagine you get 
> quite a bit.

I've been using real addresses for over 25 years, about two spammails[1]
weekly, over three mailboxes.

[1] Ones the aren't caught earlier on.
-- 
Jan van den Broek
balglaas@xs4all.nl                                           0xAFDAD00D
                                        http://huizen.dds.nl/~balglaas/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#168828 — Whoooooosh! (Was: greetings from a long-lost FAQ list maintainer)

In article <tq3fo5$2mp57$11@dont-email.me>,
Vir Campestris  <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
...
>> His email address (invalid@invalid) describes his commentary.
>> 
>
>That's fairly common. I use such an address because I don't want the 
>spammers harvesting my address and sending me ****. I imagine you get 
>quite a bit.

Whoooooosh!!!

>Andy

(Is it Vic or Andy or what?)

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNn361umypM

BTW, between the filtering my ISP does and what I do in procmail, I see
about 2 or 3 spams a year.  I usually keep them - I especially get a kick
out of the Nigerian ones.

-- 
Many North Koreans believe Kim-il-Sung is an "almighty god" who "created
the world" in seven  days as a divine spirit millions  of years ago, and
came to Earth as a human in 1912 as a messianic figure.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#168745

scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit) writes:

> Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> What do you plan for the copyright status of the FAQ?
>
> I hadn't planned on making any changes to the current copyright
> notice.  Has anyone found it problematic?

My recollection was that the subject had cropped up, particularly in
connection with maintenance over the last few years.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#168729

On 05/01/2023 14:31, Steve Summit wrote:
> There may be one or two regulars left here who remember that,
> once upon a time, I was a regular here, too, and had taken it
> upon myself to maintain this newsgroup's FAQ list, now at
> http://c-faq.com/.
> 
> But the last time I seriously updated the list was at the end of
> 2005, and for no particularly good reason, it has remained mostly
> static since then.  But! For no particular reason (other than
> that it's as good an idea as it's ever been), I am gearing up to
> give the poor old thing some much-needed TLC.  I have recovered
> the master sources (which were lost some years ago when Apple
> reformatted my laptop without asking me) from deep backups,
> I have confirmed that the thing still builds and matches what's
> currently posted, I have gotten an account at eternal-september.org
> so that I can actually post here again, and I am ready to announce
> the effort.  So if you've thought the list was looking a little
> long in the tooth, or if you've had any specific ideas for
> improvement, now's your chance.  Or, if you just want to offer
> some words of encouragement, those will be helpful, too!
> 

This all sounds great.  I think you probably left the group before I 
became a regular (though I have been here a long time), but your name 
and reputation are well-known.  It's nice to have you back.

As well as having some summaries about new features in the different C 
standards, it would also be useful to have comments about the changes in 
the FAQ itself.  Changes in C standards are usually additions, as 
backwards compatibility is so important, but occasionally existing 
features change or are deprecated.  It would be useful to have that 
noted in the relevant sections.

I assume you are fully aware of it, but the reference site 
<https://en.cppreference.com/w/> is a kind of semi-official reference 
site for C and C++.  Certainly the ISO C++ Working Group links to it as 
an online reference.  It might be worth including links to that site in 
your FAQ at relevant points, saving some effort in repetition.

Other than that, I guess I'll have to look through the FAQ again before 
giving other comments.  It's a long time since I read it!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#168730

In article <FAQ-20230105144901@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>,
Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> Welcome back!

Vielen dank.

> The idea of an FAQ once was, I believe, to answer questions
> that were frequently asked in a newsgroups.

FWIW, my ideas about FAQ lists have evolved somewhat over the
years.  At first I believed, rather fervently, that the purpose
was not only to answer the questions, but thereby prevent them
from being reposted again.  But it turns out that doesn't work:
the only thing more certain than that a neverending stream of
new learners will have the same questions, is that they won't
have heard of FAQ lists and so will go ahead and post anyway.

And it's actually even a little more interesting than that.
For example, I now have the utmost sympathy for people who post
to ask why, say, i++ + i++ doesn't give them the result they
expected.  I don't excoriate them, even in my mind, for not
trying to do any research first.  For one thing, "i++ + i++"
doesn't seem like a reasonable thing to do a Google search for,
but more importantly, it is just *so* bizarre and surprising that
the code behaves the way(s) it does!

Perhaps I'm turning into a hopeless softie, but today, if a
newbie gets bawled out for asking why i++ + i++ doesn't work
without doing any research first, I imagine a new car owner
driving blissfully down the highway with the windows open and the
radio on, when suddenly a front wheel flies off and the car goes
careening into a ditch.  The stunned and bloodied driver manages
to call 911 on his cell phone, but when the emergency responders
arrive, they start yelling at him: "What were you *doing*?
Didn't you know you couldn't use the radio with the windows
open?!  That's UNDEFINED BEHAVIOR!!  It's stated clearly in a
footnote on page 317 of your owner's manual!  Don't do that,
or don't call us again if you do!"

(It's not a perfect analogy, but it is how I imagine the poor
newbie must feel.)

> Such questions do not exist here anymore. So now one has to
> either use one's imagination [...] or pick questions from other
> sources (such as web forums) where more people are.

Indeed.  I'm somewhat sorry, but I'm not losing any sleep, over
the fact that for the past N years, I haven't been monitoring
this newsgroup for new questions, because I've been picking up
plenty from places like Stack Overflow.

					Steve Summit
					scs@eskimo.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#168734

scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit) writes:
> There may be one or two regulars left here who remember that,
> once upon a time, I was a regular here, too, and had taken it
> upon myself to maintain this newsgroup's FAQ list, now at
> http://c-faq.com/.
>
> But the last time I seriously updated the list was at the end of
> 2005, and for no particularly good reason, it has remained mostly
> static since then.  But! For no particular reason (other than
> that it's as good an idea as it's ever been), I am gearing up to
> give the poor old thing some much-needed TLC.  I have recovered
> the master sources (which were lost some years ago when Apple
> reformatted my laptop without asking me) from deep backups,
> I have confirmed that the thing still builds and matches what's
> currently posted, I have gotten an account at eternal-september.org
> so that I can actually post here again, and I am ready to announce
> the effort.  So if you've thought the list was looking a little
> long in the tooth, or if you've had any specific ideas for
> improvement, now's your chance.  Or, if you just want to offer
> some words of encouragement, those will be helpful, too!

Welcome back!  I'm looking forward to seeing (and helping with) any
updates.

[...]

> I'd like to thank Keith Thompson for gently nudging me into this
> revival after we crossed paths on Stack Overflow a little while
> back.

You're welcome.

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for XCOM Labs
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#168741

It is interesting how Usenet suddenly on the whole seems to be having a
bit of a renaissance. This is nice, as all alternatives that have turned
up over the years are centered around a single company or a website.
-- 
   /* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
  /* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
 /* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27,  FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#168760

scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit) writes:

> There may be one or two regulars left here who remember that,
> once upon a time, I was a regular here, too, and had taken it
> upon myself to maintain this newsgroup's FAQ list, now at
> http://c-faq.com/.
>
> But the last time I seriously updated the list was at the end of
> 2005, and for no particularly good reason, it has remained mostly
> static since then.  But!  For no particular reason (other than
> that it's as good an idea as it's ever been), I am gearing up to
> give the poor old thing some much-needed TLC.  [...]

Great.  I haven't used the C FAQ much recently, but certainly I
have referred to it many times in the past.  Based on the rest of
your message it looks like you are in for countless hours of fun
and excitement. ;)

There is one suggestion/request I would like to make about the
website itself.  Please make the http://... urls work directly,
and not redirect through the https://... urls.  (Having the
https://... alternate urls work also is perfectly okay, I'm not
suggesting that they should be removed, only that there be no
automatic redirection.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#168767

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
[...]
> There is one suggestion/request I would like to make about the
> website itself.  Please make the http://... urls work directly,
> and not redirect through the https://... urls.  (Having the
> https://... alternate urls work also is perfectly okay, I'm not
> suggesting that they should be removed, only that there be no
> automatic redirection.)

Why?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for XCOM Labs
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web