Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #60841 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-04-23 08:09 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-04-25 04:01 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 432 — 38 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 08:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 10:56 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-23 21:13 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 11:25 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 10:36 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 11:54 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:06 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:35 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:56 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:16 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-23 12:09 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-24 07:52 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 16:15 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-24 08:21 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 16:44 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-24 13:01 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 04:16 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robbie Hatley <see.my.sig@for.my.address> - 2015-04-24 04:42 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 16:07 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robbie Hatley <see.my.sig@for.my.address> - 2015-04-25 22:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-26 14:29 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-26 15:45 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:43 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-04-23 09:29 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-23 11:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 03:03 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 10:53 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:37 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:12 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:46 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 08:47 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Fred K <fred.l.kleinschmidt@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 07:39 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 16:20 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 12:43 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 01:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 11:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 10:02 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 18:20 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-25 10:25 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-24 23:02 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-24 11:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-26 08:09 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-26 12:26 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-28 09:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-28 11:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-28 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 07:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-09 13:14 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-10 08:23 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-10 11:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 21:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-10 12:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-05-10 13:22 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-10 18:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-10 11:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 21:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 10:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 18:26 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 11:29 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 09:14 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-13 11:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 14:55 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-13 14:35 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-13 08:24 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 21:15 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 19:40 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-13 21:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 20:52 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-13 21:06 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 23:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-14 00:19 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 04:29 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 09:57 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 04:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-14 11:34 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:24 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 01:21 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-17 10:00 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 13:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:22 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 01:59 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-16 09:51 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 05:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-16 19:32 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:13 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:13 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:54 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 01:31 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-13 21:05 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 00:48 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:27 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 02:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 09:41 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 05:02 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 13:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:32 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 20:18 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-15 05:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-15 13:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-16 02:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-16 17:13 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-17 22:34 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-20 08:47 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:36 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 12:26 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 14:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 13:45 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 15:02 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 14:20 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 15:51 +0100
I'm starting a new thread (Was: Spurious diagnostic messages) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 15:00 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 07:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 22:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-20 08:59 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-20 11:58 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-20 14:00 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-20 18:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 00:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-21 12:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 13:25 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-21 14:33 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-22 09:11 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 08:15 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-22 11:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 12:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-23 07:26 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 14:14 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-23 09:28 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-22 21:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 11:36 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 14:16 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 08:38 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 18:06 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 13:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 23:38 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-22 18:28 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 16:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 07:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 16:52 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-24 22:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-24 22:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 00:00 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 23:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 11:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-25 07:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 17:10 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-25 17:42 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-25 12:20 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:07 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-10 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 11:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-11 20:25 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-16 08:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-16 14:21 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 08:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 21:21 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 02:49 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 21:35 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 07:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:13 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-27 18:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-01 09:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages "Bartc" <bartc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-01 18:26 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-09 08:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-23 11:48 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:50 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-17 11:49 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 09:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-20 18:18 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 11:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 13:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-20 16:24 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 07:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-21 21:07 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 07:52 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-20 23:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 15:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-24 13:50 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-24 22:45 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-25 18:59 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-25 20:49 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-31 13:22 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-25 12:04 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-26 09:11 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-26 11:26 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-26 22:02 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-26 14:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-26 16:58 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-26 16:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 08:45 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-21 20:41 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-11 08:47 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 13:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 13:49 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 20:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-26 16:54 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-31 01:25 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 17:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 06:00 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 16:31 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 13:13 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:36 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-31 09:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-01 08:13 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:08 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 14:29 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-03 09:15 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 08:22 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-22 08:24 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-22 19:24 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:02 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-24 20:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-30 13:30 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:12 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 16:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 08:36 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 17:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 18:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:04 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-26 11:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-26 15:35 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-27 00:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 00:53 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-27 08:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-01 10:10 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-01 13:43 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-02 00:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:16 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-02 12:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 19:42 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 09:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-24 22:22 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-08-01 20:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 18:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-02 08:21 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-01 14:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tonton Th <tTh@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-08-01 22:26 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-08-02 09:02 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 14:23 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 09:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 16:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-03 10:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-03 12:10 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 10:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-24 20:01 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:16 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-08-03 14:11 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 10:56 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-08-01 16:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 12:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-09 13:39 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 13:37 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 13:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 19:45 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-03 09:34 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 11:04 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-04 09:07 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-09 13:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 14:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-05 11:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-06 10:47 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-06 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:53 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-03 09:40 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 11:23 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-04 09:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-09 13:33 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-06 10:59 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-06 22:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-07 13:44 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-20 10:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-20 13:42 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-20 14:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-20 21:25 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-23 10:17 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-23 10:15 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-23 11:46 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-23 17:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 11:49 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 10:50 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-23 15:57 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-23 22:51 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-23 19:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-23 22:50 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-23 23:41 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-24 00:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-24 02:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-24 07:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 14:24 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-24 09:23 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-24 15:36 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-24 13:10 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 07:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-24 19:26 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-25 00:51 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:48 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 02:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 13:23 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-27 00:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 12:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 13:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 15:55 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 18:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-29 10:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-26 13:27 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 21:09 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-27 00:03 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 00:59 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 01:15 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-27 13:34 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-27 14:07 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 19:53 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-27 21:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 21:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-28 17:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-27 10:36 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 16:54 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 16:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-27 12:18 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 18:39 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 22:04 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 21:38 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 19:54 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 19:58 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-28 14:24 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 13:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 11:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 11:05 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-10 18:08 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 07:55 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-11 15:02 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 14:08 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-21 13:27 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 15:30 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-22 15:04 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 10:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 13:55 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 14:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 20:16 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-06 09:49 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 22:20 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-28 10:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-28 06:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 10:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 10:32 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-27 17:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> - 2015-05-28 15:49 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-28 15:03 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-28 14:35 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-28 16:54 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages jadill33@gmail.com - 2015-05-28 10:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> - 2015-05-29 10:17 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 10:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 19:56 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 13:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 21:16 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 15:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 14:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-27 22:11 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 20:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-28 02:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-28 03:21 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 22:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 22:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-28 14:52 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 18:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 15:31 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 12:11 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 11:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-25 12:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:41 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:20 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 10:57 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-25 14:31 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 22:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-25 17:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 12:34 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 14:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Alain Ketterlin <alain@universite-de-strasbourg.fr.invalid> - 2015-05-29 15:28 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-05 15:18 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-29 15:31 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:35 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 07:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 16:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 12:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-17 15:46 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-18 11:10 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-18 08:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-18 18:09 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-18 18:03 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-18 14:41 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:39 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 13:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-13 19:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-05-14 09:54 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-14 08:57 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-14 08:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-14 08:33 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-14 14:37 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-14 13:13 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-15 16:26 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:44 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-22 07:37 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 11:23 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 13:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-22 06:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-28 12:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <gmail@jamesdowallen.nospam> - 2015-04-29 04:07 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 07:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 03:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-26 09:33 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-26 07:37 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 04:01 -0700
Page 20 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 Next page →
| From | luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-27 22:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13bd53e1-a6a7-4922-b13a-0dc554f1be14@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #62703 |
On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 4:11:42 PM UTC-5, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 27/05/15 21:47, Morris Dovey wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Keith, I confess that I've never thought of 'switch' as anything other
> > than a string of 'if' statements with (hidden) 'goto' statements.
>
>
> As is usual for me, I prefer to look at things more abstractly. As soon
> as I encountered the word "switch", I thought of a switch (odd, I know,
> but there you are). Something that turns something else on or off.
> Having learned what it actually does, though, I realised that it was
> more like a railway switch (in the UK, we call them "points"), but not
> /precisely/ like a railway switch, because a railway switch gives you
> two possibilities (if/else), whereas switch(){} gives you several.
>
> Railways often make for good programming analogies, though, so I spent a
> little time thinking about it, and the best I could come up with was a
> turntable. You get on, you spin the handle a few times depending on your
> condition, and then you disembark and carry merrily on your way.
>
> What I can't work into the railway analogy is "fall-through", which
> seems a very odd thing to me. If we must have it, I'd have preferred to
> have it explicitly coded in (thus eliminating the need for break). For
> example, fallthrough BAZ; meaning "jump to case BAZ". But I'd prefer to
> do without it completely.
>
I think the best analogy would be a telephone
switching plugboard. Just imagine that Saturday
night live sketch with Lily Tomlin. One end of
the cable is fixed (the test expression) and the
other end connects to the appropriate junction
determine by the whim (protocol) of the operator
(implementation).
--
note that parenthetical terms which (over)emphasize
the metaphor are for the audience and not Mr.
Heathfield, author of the message to which this is
a reply. I assume he would get the idea without
such "baby talk". man am i stoned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-27 22:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mk5cfo$u6i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62700 |
On 27/05/2015 21:47, Morris Dovey wrote: > On 5/27/15 12:40 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > >> What's the point of specifying x in `switch (x)`? Can the expression >> refer to things other than x? If it can't, it seems like an odd >> restriction. If it can, it's just an if/else in disguise. > > Because it's needed for the kind of case testing already in use. > > I think one of the goals should be to extend the existing syntax and > capabilities without affecting any existing code in any way. > > Keith, I confess that I've never thought of 'switch' as anything other > than a string of 'if' statements with (hidden) 'goto' statements. (I've always implemented 'switch' specifically for jump tables, which means various restrictions on what is allowed. For anything else, or where a jump table is not practical, then there is a separate kind of statement. I've recently found however that switch statements with a small number of cases (<8 in one program) are more efficient when implemented as a sequential set of tests (for x64 at least). So small switches are silently converted to the other form which does test sequentially. But with either kind of statement (C has just the one), the pattern is clear to me: you are testing the same expression against a range of possibilities. Rather different from the arbitrary testing you can do in an if-else chain.) -- Barftc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-28 14:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mk7313$btq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62705 |
On 27/05/15 23:22, Bartc wrote: > On 27/05/2015 21:47, Morris Dovey wrote: >> On 5/27/15 12:40 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> >>> What's the point of specifying x in `switch (x)`? Can the expression >>> refer to things other than x? If it can't, it seems like an odd >>> restriction. If it can, it's just an if/else in disguise. >> >> Because it's needed for the kind of case testing already in use. >> >> I think one of the goals should be to extend the existing syntax and >> capabilities without affecting any existing code in any way. >> >> Keith, I confess that I've never thought of 'switch' as anything other >> than a string of 'if' statements with (hidden) 'goto' statements. > > (I've always implemented 'switch' specifically for jump tables, which > means various restrictions on what is allowed. For anything else, or > where a jump table is not practical, then there is a separate kind of > statement. > > I've recently found however that switch statements with a small number > of cases (<8 in one program) are more efficient when implemented as a > sequential set of tests (for x64 at least). So small switches are > silently converted to the other form which does test sequentially. There are many situations where a series of tests is a better choice than a jump table for implementing a switch. In particular, jump tables quickly get inefficient if the cases are not sequential (or where the cases can be combined in a compact but non-sequential manner). But even if they are sequential, a sequence of tests (usually a balanced tree) can be better than a jump table if it works faster on the target cpu - the tests can be predicted or executed speculatively, while a computed jump may need a full pipeline flush. > > But with either kind of statement (C has just the one), the pattern is > clear to me: you are testing the same expression against a range of > possibilities. Rather different from the arbitrary testing you can do in > an if-else chain.) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-27 18:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mk50d4$9de$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62675 |
On 27/05/2015 16:32, Morris Dovey wrote:
> On 5/27/15 4:22 AM, Bartc wrote:
>>
>> But if the people responsible for C decide they are of insufficient
>> benefit, then they must be right. After all, what do I know?
> There would seem to be a lot of interesting possibilities...
>
> One that I've wondered about from time to time is
>
> switch (x)
> { case { expression }:
> /* case code */
> /* other cases */
> }
>
> where <expression> is code that examines x and yields TRUE (execute case
> code) or FALSE (do not execute case code) – of which an interesting
> subset/derivative possibility might be:
>
> switch (x)
> { case { function(x) }:
> /* case code */
> /* other cases */
> }
>
> which causes the named function to be invoked to produce the TRUE/FALSE
> result.
Unless I've missed something, those are equivalent to:
if (expression) {
....
and:
if (function(x)) {
....
so there is a less compelling reason for such a feature (ie. runtime
case expressions, although you've confused it a little by requiring a
match with TRUE rather then the switch expression).
With a more elaborate example, I have a syntax which would look like:
case
when expr1, expr2 then
....
when expr3, expr4, expr5 then
....
else
....
end
which is tidy, but is still just another way of writing:
if (expr1 || expr2) {
....
} else if (expr3 || expr4 || expr5) {
....
} else {
....
}
> C actually does have a (primitive) range-testing feature:
>
> if (x >= lower_bound && x <= upper_bound) /* x in range! */;
Here, on the other hand, a proper treatment of ranges would have real
advantages. (You can do certain things with macros, but they would look
terrible. Some things simply need to be built-in.)
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-27 15:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mk59in$s4r$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #62687 |
On 5/27/15 12:55 PM, Bartc wrote:
> On 27/05/2015 16:32, Morris Dovey wrote:
>> On 5/27/15 4:22 AM, Bartc wrote:
>
>>>
>>> But if the people responsible for C decide they are of insufficient
>>> benefit, then they must be right. After all, what do I know?
>
>> There would seem to be a lot of interesting possibilities...
>>
>> One that I've wondered about from time to time is
>>
>> switch (x)
>> { case { expression }:
>> /* case code */
>> /* other cases */
>> }
>>
>> where <expression> is code that examines x and yields TRUE (execute case
>> code) or FALSE (do not execute case code) – of which an interesting
>> subset/derivative possibility might be:
>>
>> switch (x)
>> { case { function(x) }:
>> /* case code */
>> /* other cases */
>> }
>>
>> which causes the named function to be invoked to produce the TRUE/FALSE
>> result.
>
> Unless I've missed something, those are equivalent to:
>
> if (expression) {
> ....
>
> and:
>
> if (function(x)) {
> ....
I agree - although there's need to determine whether this case test can
be bypassed and its code executed without qualification because a
previous case qualified, executed, and neither it nor any of the
intervening cases contained a break statement.
> so there is a less compelling reason for such a feature (ie. runtime
> case expressions, although you've confused it a little by requiring a
> match with TRUE rather then the switch expression).
>
> With a more elaborate example, I have a syntax which would look like:
>
> case
> when expr1, expr2 then
> ....
> when expr3, expr4, expr5 then
> ....
> else
> ....
> end
I think I could like that were it not for the fact that it would break a
lot of existing code.
>
> which is tidy, but is still just another way of writing:
>
> if (expr1 || expr2) {
> ....
> } else if (expr3 || expr4 || expr5) {
> ....
> } else {
> ....
> }
>
>
>> C actually does have a (primitive) range-testing feature:
>>
>> if (x >= lower_bound && x <= upper_bound) /* x in range! */;
>
> Here, on the other hand, a proper treatment of ranges would have real
> advantages. (You can do certain things with macros, but they would look
> terrible. Some things simply need to be built-in.)
Agreed.
--
Morris Dovey
http://www.iedu.com/Solar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 12:11 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87pp5pqaw9.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #62514 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: > On 23-May-15 23:41, Morris Dovey wrote: > > On 5/23/15 10:50 PM, Robert Wessel wrote: > >> The problem comes up when the specification is: > >> > >> case 'A'..'Z': > >> > >> ... > > > > I’d kinda like to see: > > > > case 'A'..'Ω': > > > > too. :-) > > Even if we assume you're switching on a wchar_t (or a UTF-8 string, if > that were to be allowed too), that probably won't do what you expect: > > http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0370.pdf > > Internationalization is hard; let's go shopping! If unicrud has anything to do with internationalisation any more, I'm a dutchman. It's now just one of those crappy clip-art libraries which seemed really 'kewl' for all of 5 seconds back in the early 90s: http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1F300.pdf Phil, not even vaguely dutch -- A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall be well regulated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 11:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mjus1g$4ga$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62587 |
On 25/05/2015 10:11, Phil Carmody wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: >> http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0370.pdf >> >> Internationalization is hard; let's go shopping! > > If unicrud has anything to do with internationalisation any more, > I'm a dutchman. It's now just one of those crappy clip-art libraries > which seemed really 'kewl' for all of 5 seconds back in the early 90s: > http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1F300.pdf So this is why we have to go to 32-bits per character and still need UTF-16 instead of just having 16-bit characters and be done with it. To be able to have pictures of farmyard animals and slices of pizza! I agree that this stuff doesn't belong inside a character set mapping. Even if we'd need more than 64K code points anyway. (At one time it was my responsibility to provide glyphs for both raster and vector fonts, fortunately for 8-bit character sets; doing this lot would have taken ages!) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 12:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87k2vwo3oj.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #62592 |
Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 25/05/2015 10:11, Phil Carmody wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
>>>> http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0370.pdf
>>>
>>> Internationalization is hard; let's go shopping!
>>
>> If unicrud has anything to do with internationalisation any more,
>> I'm a dutchman. It's now just one of those crappy clip-art libraries
>> which seemed really 'kewl' for all of 5 seconds back in the early 90s:
>> http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1F300.pdf
How much of range of Unicode characters is taken up by Emoji?
> So this is why we have to go to 32-bits per character and still need
> UTF-16 instead of just having 16-bit characters and be done with it.
>
> To be able to have pictures of farmyard animals and slices of pizza!
Not at all. There are plenty of characters from real-world alphabets
that don't fit into the initial 2**16 code values.
> I agree that this stuff doesn't belong inside a character set
> mapping. Even if we'd need more than 64K code points anyway.
I haven't paid much attention to the Emoji. I have no strong
opinion on whether Unicode *should* support them, but presumably
they were added because there was demand for them.
As long as I'm able to read UTF-8 text without having to worry about
them, I don't have any problem with their presence. (And they
probably reduce the incentive to render punctuation sequences as
smiley faces. I get USGS earthquake notifications as text messages,
and I got really tired of every occurrence of the messages being
displayed with random smiley faces.)
[...]
--
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 | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 15:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mk01ao$nq9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62610 |
On 25-May-15 14:30, Keith Thompson wrote: > Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 25/05/2015 10:11, Phil Carmody wrote: >>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: >>>>> http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0370.pdf >>>> >>>> Internationalization is hard; let's go shopping! >>> >>> If unicrud has anything to do with internationalisation any >>> more, I'm a dutchman. It's now just one of those crappy clip-art >>> libraries which seemed really 'kewl' for all of 5 seconds back in >>> the early 90s: http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1F300.pdf > > How much of range of Unicode characters is taken up by Emoji? As of Unicode 7.0, there are two blocks: U+2600 - U+27BF U+1F300 - U+1F6FF That's 1,742 code points out of 1,114,112, or 0.156%. I suspect both of those blocks have some reservations for expansion, but even if so, they are still a tiny, tiny fraction of the entire code space. >> So this is why we have to go to 32-bits per character and still >> need UTF-16 instead of just having 16-bit characters and be done >> with it. >> >> To be able to have pictures of farmyard animals and slices of >> pizza! > > Not at all. There are plenty of characters from real-world > alphabets that don't fit into the initial 2**16 code values. Heck, there is _one_ script that doesn't fit in 2^16 codes, even by itself; add in all the others, even just the ones in current use around the world, and it's not even close. The original UCS-2 proposal apparently assumed that folks would simply stop using all characters outside the BMP. However, since that includes characters that some people need _just to write their own names, that was obviously never going to work. >> I agree that this stuff doesn't belong inside a character set >> mapping. Even if we'd need more than 64K code points anyway. > > I haven't paid much attention to the Emoji. I have no strong opinion > on whether Unicode *should* support them, but presumably they were > added because there was demand for them. Well, part of Unicode's charter is to provide code points for _every_ character that has a code point in some legacy encoding, and the original emoji fell into that category. Once some were in, it would have been a lot more difficult to deny useful expansions. For instance, if there was already an emoji for the Japanese flag, then how can you deny adding emoji for other countries' flags? What about the recent proposal for skin-tone modifiers, to address claims of racism with the "white" (actually mostly yellow) human emoji? > As long as I'm able to read UTF-8 text without having to worry about > them, I don't have any problem with their presence. Agreed; we have to support UTF-8 and dozens of scripts anyway, for proper internationalization, so emoji don't make things any worse. > (And they probably reduce the incentive to render punctuation > sequences as smiley faces. I get USGS earthquake notifications as > text messages, and I got really tired of every occurrence of the > messages being displayed with random smiley faces.) Agreed, and it's often hard to figure out which characters errant smiley faces were supposed to be. Emoji solve that problem nicely. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 15:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mk0049$j5a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62592 |
On 25-May-15 05:04, Bartc wrote: > On 25/05/2015 10:11, Phil Carmody wrote: >> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: >>> http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0370.pdf >>> >>> Internationalization is hard; let's go shopping! >> >> If unicrud has anything to do with internationalisation any more, >> I'm a dutchman. It's now just one of those crappy clip-art >> libraries which seemed really 'kewl' for all of 5 seconds back in >> the early 90s: >> http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1F300.pdf > > So this is why we have to go to 32-bits per character and still need > UTF-16 instead of just having 16-bit characters and be done with it. No; 16 bits wasn't enough to support even just CJK characters, much less all the other (past and present) scripts of humanity. However, once we had a 21-bit space, it was natural to start to look for things to fill it; emoji is a relatively small and harmless example. > (At one time it was my responsibility to provide glyphs for both > raster and vector fonts, fortunately for 8-bit character sets; doing > this lot would have taken ages!) Still, only one person has to do it, and in the vast majority of cases, that's done before a code point is assigned by Unicode anyway. Where do you think the glyphs in their tables come from? If the user-selected font doesn't have a glyph for a particular code point, e.g. because it's in an unsupported script, the system will just find another font that does have a glyph. Emoji is just another script, no different from the dozens of others in common use. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-24 10:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mjs78a$gn4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62511 |
On 24/05/2015 04:50, Robert Wessel wrote: > I think we're all agreed that is clear enough, and has at least some > use cases (although not whether it's sufficiently useful to include in > the language). I briefly mentioned the kind of use where it might not be practical to enumerate all the cases, such as: case first .. last: You don't know what first or last are, and even if you did, now these cases need updating whenever first or last change: case first: case first+1: case ??? ... case last: I don't think there's any question that it would be useful. That's probably why gcc has it (but with three dots which have to be separated from numeric constants). > Bartc appears to be proposing special handling of some forms of the > range, specifically so that the above case would result in matches for > the 26 basic letters. Yes, otherwise encoding A to Z as consecutive code points in ASCII, and having the lower case versions offset by exactly 32, would have been a complete waste of time, if no-one is allowed to make use of that fact! They might as well have been assigned completely randomly. > A major issue is exactly what the syntax and > semantics of that would be. For example, what heppens when the > following are specified: > > case 'A'+2..'J'+2: > case 'A'..'b': > case '['..']': > > I don't see any solutions that aren't particularly ugly. So there's > probably no way, in C, to actually do that. > case '['..']': > > I don't see any solutions that aren't particularly ugly. So there's > probably no way, in C, to actually do that. I think I replied to these examples before. What exactly do you want to happen here? It's not obvious nor intuitive. But sub-ranges of the English alphabet, /of the same case/, are. While C /does/ allow you to write: case 'A'+2: case 'J'+2: which also makes some assumptions. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 14:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <4ut6madr5b1qegcs7drk7ncfm9gnme58ro@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #62519 |
On Sun, 24 May 2015 10:57:36 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >On 24/05/2015 04:50, Robert Wessel wrote: > > > I think we're all agreed that is clear enough, and has at least some > > use cases (although not whether it's sufficiently useful to include in > > the language). > >I briefly mentioned the kind of use where it might not be practical to >enumerate all the cases, such as: > > case first .. last: > >You don't know what first or last are, and even if you did, now these >cases need updating whenever first or last change: > > case first: > case first+1: > case ??? > ... > case last: > >I don't think there's any question that it would be useful. That's >probably why gcc has it (but with three dots which have to be separated >from numeric constants). > >> Bartc appears to be proposing special handling of some forms of the >> range, specifically so that the above case would result in matches for >> the 26 basic letters. > >Yes, otherwise encoding A to Z as consecutive code points in ASCII, and >having the lower case versions offset by exactly 32, would have been a >complete waste of time, if no-one is allowed to make use of that fact! >They might as well have been assigned completely randomly. > >> A major issue is exactly what the syntax and >> semantics of that would be. For example, what heppens when the >> following are specified: >> >> case 'A'+2..'J'+2: >> case 'A'..'b': >> case '['..']': >> >> I don't see any solutions that aren't particularly ugly. So there's >> probably no way, in C, to actually do that. > > > case '['..']': > > > > I don't see any solutions that aren't particularly ugly. So there's > > probably no way, in C, to actually do that. > >I think I replied to these examples before. What exactly do you want to >happen here? It's not obvious nor intuitive. But sub-ranges of the >English alphabet, /of the same case/, are. > >While C /does/ allow you to write: > > case 'A'+2: case 'J'+2: > >which also makes some assumptions. My question is what exactly syntactically distinguishes the above cases from the "sub-ranges of the English alphabet" that would get special handling. I understand that you *want* "case 'a..'z':" to mean the 26 letters, I want to know what reasonable syntax rules would produce such a thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 22:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mk0486$3in$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62611 |
On 25/05/2015 20:31, Robert Wessel wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2015 10:57:36 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On 24/05/2015 04:50, Robert Wessel wrote:
>>> A major issue is exactly what the syntax and
>>> semantics of that would be. For example, what heppens when the
>>> following are specified:
>>>
>>> case 'A'+2..'J'+2:
>>> case 'A'..'b':
>>> case '['..']':
>>>
>>> I don't see any solutions that aren't particularly ugly. So there's
>>> probably no way, in C, to actually do that.
>>
>>> case '['..']':
>>>
>>> I don't see any solutions that aren't particularly ugly. So there's
>>> probably no way, in C, to actually do that.
>>
>> I think I replied to these examples before. What exactly do you want to
>> happen here? It's not obvious nor intuitive. But sub-ranges of the
>> English alphabet, /of the same case/, are.
>>
>> While C /does/ allow you to write:
>>
>> case 'A'+2: case 'J'+2:
>>
>> which also makes some assumptions.
>
>
> My question is what exactly syntactically distinguishes the above
> cases from the "sub-ranges of the English alphabet" that would get
> special handling.
> I understand that you *want* "case 'a..'z':" to mean the 26 letters, I
> want to know what reasonable syntax rules would produce such a thing.
Morris Dovey suggested one approach which was to apply a function to
each character code which would map it into whatever character set you
wanted (a collating sequence he called it).
I'd be happy if it just mapped any character to ASCII (and this is very
easy to do on most machines as it will already be ASCII).
But it means the examples would need rewriting as something like:
case asc('A')+2 .. asc('J')+2:
case asc('A') .. asc('b'):
Here, the assumption is that asc() will accept both upper and lower case
and return a code within a single range (eg. 0 to 127). Other functions
might take only upper case, or map everything to lower case.
Out-of-range codes might return 0.
case asc('[')..asc(']'):
In this example, this just ensures that whatever range is intended, it
is consistent across different machines.
However, take away asc(), and this is what C does now on machines with
ASCII targets. asc() or some equivalent function might satisfy people
who worry about EBCDIC, or need to work with an alphabet that needs to
include extra, or fewer, characters.
(It would still need the range feature, and asc() etc would need to be a
compile-time constant for use as a case label.)
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 17:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <qs97mallk9vh8vmak0e4tt31gi3jetts2h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #62619 |
On Mon, 25 May 2015 22:30:50 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>On 25/05/2015 20:31, Robert Wessel wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 May 2015 10:57:36 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> On 24/05/2015 04:50, Robert Wessel wrote:
>
>>>> A major issue is exactly what the syntax and
>>>> semantics of that would be. For example, what heppens when the
>>>> following are specified:
>>>>
>>>> case 'A'+2..'J'+2:
>>>> case 'A'..'b':
>>>> case '['..']':
>>>>
>>>> I don't see any solutions that aren't particularly ugly. So there's
>>>> probably no way, in C, to actually do that.
>>>
>>>> case '['..']':
>>>>
>>>> I don't see any solutions that aren't particularly ugly. So there's
>>>> probably no way, in C, to actually do that.
>>>
>>> I think I replied to these examples before. What exactly do you want to
>>> happen here? It's not obvious nor intuitive. But sub-ranges of the
>>> English alphabet, /of the same case/, are.
>>>
>>> While C /does/ allow you to write:
>>>
>>> case 'A'+2: case 'J'+2:
>>>
>>> which also makes some assumptions.
>>
>>
>> My question is what exactly syntactically distinguishes the above
>> cases from the "sub-ranges of the English alphabet" that would get
>> special handling.
>
>> I understand that you *want* "case 'a..'z':" to mean the 26 letters, I
>> want to know what reasonable syntax rules would produce such a thing.
>
>Morris Dovey suggested one approach which was to apply a function to
>each character code which would map it into whatever character set you
>wanted (a collating sequence he called it).
>
>I'd be happy if it just mapped any character to ASCII (and this is very
>easy to do on most machines as it will already be ASCII).
>
>But it means the examples would need rewriting as something like:
>
> case asc('A')+2 .. asc('J')+2:
> case asc('A') .. asc('b'):
>
>Here, the assumption is that asc() will accept both upper and lower case
>and return a code within a single range (eg. 0 to 127). Other functions
>might take only upper case, or map everything to lower case.
>Out-of-range codes might return 0.
>
> case asc('[')..asc(']'):
>
>In this example, this just ensures that whatever range is intended, it
>is consistent across different machines.
I really don't see how this would work. For something like this to
work you'd need to translate *both* the value and the comperand(s).
IOW:
switch (co(value))
{
case co('a')..(co'z');
}
>However, take away asc(), and this is what C does now on machines with
>ASCII targets. asc() or some equivalent function might satisfy people
>who worry about EBCDIC, or need to work with an alphabet that needs to
>include extra, or fewer, characters.
>
>(It would still need the range feature, and asc() etc would need to be a
>compile-time constant for use as a case label.)
At least the range would be needed, the rest could be a port of C++
constexprs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-29 12:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55685ccd.15207546@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #62611 |
Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote: > I understand that you *want* "case 'a..'z':" to mean the 26 letters, I > want to know what reasonable syntax rules would produce such a thing. What I want to know is where he thinks he's going to go with that proposal in Turkey, or Wales. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-29 14:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mk9o3g$3g5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62785 |
On 29/05/2015 13:34, Richard Bos wrote: > Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> I understand that you *want* "case 'a..'z':" to mean the 26 letters, I >> want to know what reasonable syntax rules would produce such a thing. > > What I want to know is where he thinks he's going to go with that > proposal in Turkey, or Wales. I'm looking at a street atlas of Cardiff right now, published by the A-Z map company. The street index at the back lists all the usual letters of the alphabet and in the usual order (although X is missing, probably because there are no streets starting with X). Any composite letters I guess are represented by two letters from A-Z (eg "ll" as "l" followed by "l"). It shows how versatile it is. As for Turkish, didn't they recently convert from Arabic? (I wonder why?) In any case, their Latin alphabet seems strikingly familiar to our A-Z one, just with more bits stuck on, probably different ways of pronouncing them. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alain Ketterlin <alain@universite-de-strasbourg.fr.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-29 15:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87lhg7y0m6.fsf@universite-de-strasbourg.fr.invalid> |
| In reply to | #62788 |
Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 29/05/2015 13:34, Richard Bos wrote: >> Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> I understand that you *want* "case 'a..'z':" to mean the 26 letters, I >>> want to know what reasonable syntax rules would produce such a thing. >> >> What I want to know is where he thinks he's going to go with that >> proposal in Turkey, or Wales. [...] > As for Turkish, didn't they recently convert from Arabic? Yes. In 1928. > (I wonder why?) In any case, their Latin alphabet seems strikingly > familiar to our A-Z one, just with more bits stuck on, probably > different ways of pronouncing them. It's not that simple. The Turkish alphabet has a dotless-i (ı, aka U+0131) whose uppercase is I (U+0049), and a i-with-dot (U+0069), whose uppercase is İ (U+0130). -- Alain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-05 15:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5571bda4.2334281@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #62789 |
Alain Ketterlin <alain@universite-de-strasbourg.fr.invalid> wrote: > Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > > > On 29/05/2015 13:34, Richard Bos wrote: > >> Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > >>> I understand that you *want* "case 'a..'z':" to mean the 26 letters, I > >>> want to know what reasonable syntax rules would produce such a thing. > >> > >> What I want to know is where he thinks he's going to go with that > >> proposal in Turkey, or Wales. > > (I wonder why?) In any case, their Latin alphabet seems strikingly > > familiar to our A-Z one, just with more bits stuck on, probably > > different ways of pronouncing them. > > It's not that simple. The Turkish alphabet has a dotless-i (ı, aka > U+0131) whose uppercase is I (U+0049), and a i-with-dot (U+0069), whose > uppercase is İ (U+0130). And crucially, to the Turks, the dotless i isn't stuck _on_, it's stuck _in_. A-Z, to them, has more than Bart's 26 letters. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-29 15:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mk9pm4$9s3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62788 |
On 29/05/15 15:04, Bartc wrote: > On 29/05/2015 13:34, Richard Bos wrote: >> Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> I understand that you *want* "case 'a..'z':" to mean the 26 letters, I >>> want to know what reasonable syntax rules would produce such a thing. >> >> What I want to know is where he thinks he's going to go with that >> proposal in Turkey, or Wales. > > I'm looking at a street atlas of Cardiff right now, published by the A-Z > map company. The street index at the back lists all the usual letters of > the alphabet and in the usual order (although X is missing, probably > because there are no streets starting with X). > > Any composite letters I guess are represented by two letters from A-Z > (eg "ll" as "l" followed by "l"). It shows how versatile it is. > > As for Turkish, didn't they recently convert from Arabic? (I wonder > why?) In any case, their Latin alphabet seems strikingly familiar to our > A-Z one, just with more bits stuck on, probably different ways of > pronouncing them. > They converted from the Arabic alphabet to a Latin alphabet in the 1920's, as part of the modernisation and Westernisation of the country after WWI. There were several reasons for doing so - they wanted to be closer to Europe and further from the Middle East, the Latin alphabet is a better fit for the language (which is completely unrelated to Arabic), it would make it easier for communicating in different languages, it is arguably easier to learn than the Arabic alphabet, and it would allow the usage of modern technology such as typewriters and more flexible printing presses. The result is that within just a few years, literacy rates in Turkey jumped from around 7% to 15-20%, and continued to climb thereafter. (There were a great many radical changes in Turkey at the time, which also affected this figure.) But what I cannot understand is that when they took on the Latin alphabet, they added a range of accents and diacritical marks that are unknown in any other language, making it impossible to use standard typewriters (or in today's terms, standard fonts and keyboards) from other common Latin alphabet languages. I think the idea was to avoid merely copying the "foreign" Latin alphabet, but to take it and make it into something Turkish - nationalism was a very big motivator for Turkey at the time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-17 15:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mjau0k$ott$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62155 |
On 17-May-15 08:45, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> (BTW would you have any objection to being able to write case
>> 'A','B','C': or does it absolutely have to be case ''A': case 'B':
>> case 'C': ? What about case "ABC": where the characters of the
>> string are separated out into 'A', 'B', 'C'?)
>
> The *right* solution to all of this (i.e., this specific problem as
> well as a whole bunch more) is to allow expression in the case
> labels, like certain other "C-like" languages, such as PHP, do.
>
> That is, to allow:
>
> switch (1) { case !!isupper(c): ... }
>
> This form of switch exists in several "scripting type" languages,
> PHP probably being the best known example.
That sounds great, but what if two (or more) of the case expressions
were true, which might not be determinable at compile time because the
value returned by isuppper() depends on the locale? Do you execute the
first one? All of them? Would the result be implementation-defined,
unspecified, or undefined?
> P.S. Yes, I can hear the caterwauling already about how inefficient
> this would be - how it would prevent the compiler from using
> so-called "jump tables" and so on. Well, I'm not listening to said
> caterwauling...
An inability to use jump tables, which is the main advantage of a switch
statement over an if/else chain, seems to defeat the purpose.
Bartc's suggestion of "case 'A','B','C':" would be compatible with jump
tables, however, since it's just a syntactic shortcut for the existing
"case 'A': case 'B': case 'C':".
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 20 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web