Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #161260 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-06-06 13:16 +0100 |
| Last post | 2021-06-17 19:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 11 on this page of 391 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 13:16 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-06 15:27 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 06:00 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-07 18:06 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-06 06:34 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 16:33 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-06 14:59 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-06-06 18:58 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-06 21:12 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-06 21:02 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 21:25 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 15:13 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-06 23:55 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 17:02 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 18:42 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 19:39 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-06-07 17:15 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 12:03 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 20:55 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-07 22:17 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 21:54 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 13:22 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 13:36 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-07 08:52 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 11:06 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-07 13:25 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 13:00 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 07:25 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 16:31 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-07 16:15 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 17:53 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 19:02 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-07 22:26 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-08 00:19 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 17:06 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-08 11:13 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-08 11:43 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 18:54 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 19:57 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 15:10 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-06 14:51 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-06 16:05 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-06-06 14:20 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-06-06 15:03 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 18:38 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2021-06-08 08:06 -0600
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-06-08 07:45 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-06-08 17:09 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-08 16:00 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-08 17:23 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-08 18:59 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-09 00:22 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-08 16:53 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-06-09 11:40 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-09 17:36 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-09 17:48 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-09 20:19 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-09 21:28 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-09 23:47 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-10 11:14 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-10 12:38 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-10 15:30 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-10 15:18 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-10 16:55 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-06-10 17:23 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-10 20:47 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-10 17:19 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-11 09:52 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-11 11:25 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 12:00 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-06-11 21:14 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-11 19:46 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 15:28 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 15:06 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 15:08 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-12 00:32 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-11 22:32 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 15:17 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-11 23:29 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-11 23:21 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-06-12 00:39 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-12 01:11 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-12 00:51 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-12 11:08 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-12 16:12 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-12 18:36 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 13:06 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 12:42 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-12 14:13 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-10 15:16 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-10 16:45 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-10 16:56 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-10 19:32 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-09 22:37 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-09 15:12 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-09 23:18 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2021-06-08 09:25 -0600
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-08 16:13 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-06-08 21:43 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2021-06-08 15:03 -0500
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-06-24 10:33 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-24 13:45 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2021-07-01 17:57 -0500
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-07-11 00:26 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 09:49 -0500
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-27 15:47 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 10:55 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-07-27 23:48 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-27 22:12 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-28 00:38 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 18:30 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-28 13:02 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 07:19 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-28 14:06 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-28 15:44 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-28 15:21 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-28 17:49 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-28 17:21 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-28 23:41 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 16:07 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 02:23 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 19:20 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 11:05 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 08:12 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 16:34 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-29 17:10 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 10:29 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 10:28 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 19:07 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 11:16 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 19:41 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 12:43 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-30 15:06 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 16:31 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-30 19:49 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 20:03 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-30 23:16 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 01:51 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-31 13:42 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 14:56 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-07-31 19:33 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 19:17 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-07-31 21:32 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 23:10 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-08-01 00:43 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 15:54 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-04 13:36 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-04 13:32 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-04 14:24 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-04 16:08 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-04 16:32 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-04 16:33 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-04 18:40 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-04 19:31 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-07 10:03 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-07 17:11 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-08 08:51 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 15:41 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-08-08 17:12 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 20:25 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-08 20:21 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 20:38 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-08 14:00 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 22:16 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-08 22:17 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 22:32 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 23:13 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-09 01:46 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 10:54 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 03:59 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 13:55 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-09 16:08 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-09 07:53 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 08:28 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 08:19 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 16:51 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-09 16:47 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 17:09 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-08 15:30 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 00:33 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-08 20:03 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 01:29 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-09 15:05 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 23:48 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-09 16:45 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 01:33 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-09 17:52 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 11:17 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 11:22 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 20:05 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 13:49 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 03:03 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 16:27 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 11:17 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 20:23 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 14:00 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 22:54 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 15:32 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-08-09 17:53 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-09 18:27 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-10 01:55 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 12:19 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-10 02:04 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-10 09:42 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-11 17:19 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 20:04 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-11 20:19 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-11 16:51 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 21:33 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-11 19:10 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-12 16:08 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-08 19:56 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-10 14:35 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-10 21:41 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-10 15:08 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 23:22 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-10 20:15 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-11 08:34 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 11:23 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-11 03:46 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 14:29 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-11 07:26 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-01 15:04 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-11 03:55 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 13:55 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-11 07:07 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-01 13:44 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-10-01 22:40 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-02 01:37 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-11 14:29 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 18:54 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 20:10 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 20:04 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-11 17:04 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 11:09 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 13:52 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-11 08:01 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 15:06 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 16:47 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 16:14 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 18:27 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-08-11 11:01 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 19:45 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-11 15:55 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 22:10 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-11 22:47 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 23:00 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 10:29 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 12:10 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 16:28 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 08:03 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-12 15:52 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 17:55 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 16:59 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 19:44 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-12 19:02 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 20:22 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 11:10 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 23:17 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 16:52 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 22:22 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 19:51 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-01 13:49 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-12 16:52 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-12 18:45 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 22:17 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-11 21:09 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 23:13 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 23:30 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 10:39 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 12:26 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 16:44 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 17:20 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 20:00 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-12 00:44 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-11 10:39 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 17:52 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-11 11:41 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-08 16:00 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ike Naar <ike@rie.sdf.org> - 2021-08-09 05:46 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 01:38 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 01:57 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 10:55 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-08-04 11:48 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-04 19:34 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-07-31 19:18 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 22:35 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-07-31 23:51 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 01:46 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-07-30 17:20 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 11:16 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-07-30 20:24 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:17 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-30 14:55 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 16:13 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-07-30 09:08 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 18:18 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-30 17:38 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 11:17 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 20:33 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-30 20:10 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 21:50 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:49 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:39 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:44 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 00:08 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 16:31 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-07-31 19:57 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 11:01 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-30 23:28 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 15:19 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 11:12 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 20:26 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-30 20:08 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 22:10 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 15:34 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 00:13 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 16:36 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 02:23 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 21:14 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 11:27 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 15:29 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 15:48 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 00:14 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 16:25 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 00:52 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 00:29 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 16:50 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 01:16 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 18:01 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2021-08-01 01:38 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 11:41 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2021-08-01 19:14 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 11:54 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 16:34 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-01 14:58 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2021-08-01 19:27 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:43 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-07-30 23:33 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 02:11 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-07-31 20:33 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-31 02:14 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 21:23 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 11:39 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 12:58 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2021-07-31 21:21 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-30 14:54 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 10:47 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:16 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-30 14:51 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-07-30 20:22 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:07 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Dill <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 06:09 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 14:26 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-29 13:51 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 16:18 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-09-30 05:39 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 17:14 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-28 02:01 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 19:07 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 12:32 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 12:41 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 09:02 -0500
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 15:19 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 10:19 -0500
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 16:34 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-30 15:58 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> - 2021-07-30 11:28 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-09-06 05:20 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-09-06 05:09 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-11 12:33 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-06-16 19:39 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-06-17 11:50 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 12:02 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-06-17 17:05 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-17 13:49 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 13:39 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-17 15:05 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 14:34 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-17 18:35 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 18:14 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 11:29 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-06-17 08:22 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-17 16:22 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 17:57 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-17 17:53 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 21:27 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-17 17:58 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-18 11:25 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-06-17 19:30 +0200
Page 20 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-17 18:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <saftl2$4s3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #161460 |
On 17/06/2021 15:34, Bart wrote: > On 17/06/2021 14:05, David Brown wrote: >> On 17/06/2021 14:39, Bart wrote: > >>> This is good. With this macro, you're 1% along the path of creating a >>> new, improved language. Although not of course as good as a purpose-made >>> language, since it sits on top of C: >> >> I'm not interested in making a new language, > > Everytime you respond to a flaw or omission by finding a macro > workaround, then you are creating new language elements. First, I am not responding to a "flaw" or an "omission" - I am responding to your desires (or at least your post) to make linked lists without struct tags. I don't see any flaws or omissions in the C language here - people have used the language to make linked lists without any trouble. Secondly, macros are part of the language - they are not making "new language elements" any more than defining a function would be. > >> > >>> Your proposal still relies on struct tags. It creates 'node' in two >>> parallel namespaces. It allows both 'node X' and 'struct node Y'. >> >> No one /cares/. > > Well, the OP cares. Purists might care: C only has tags now because they > were there to start with. A proper typedef could have done away with > them. Now they're like one of Charles' carbuncles. > If the language had been designed differently, it would have been different. Well, now we know that. As for "purists" - pure what? And no, the OP does not care if C has struct tags or not - he was curious as to whether they are necessary or not, and why the language has them. That is completely different. (I am often curious about why C has or does not have particular features, even though I might be quite happy either way.) > This is not a problem - not in real life, for people >> writing real code. It has been somewhat interesting to discuss why C is >> the way it is here - history can often be interesting. But no one is >> actually concerned about the practice, or thinks there are real >> problems, or thinks there is scope for real improvement. >> >>> >>> It's also not clear how well it works, if at all, with mutually >>> referential structs. >>> >>> That is why such macro solutions don't really work. They also suffer >>> from the problem of everyone developing their own, incompatible >>> workarounds. >> >> Macros are fine for this kind of thing if you think it makes the code >> clearer. They /do/ work. Of course unnecessary, gratuitous use will be >> counter-productive - surely that goes without saying, as it can be >> applied to /everything/ in programming, indeed, everything in life. >> >> And I think every serious programmer will be far happier to deal with a >> few odd and unnecessary C macros like this to work around "defects" in C >> than an entire incompatible home-made language created to avoid such >> imaginary defects in C. > > Here's how my own 'macro' works, here defining mutually referential > structs: > > record node= > int data > ref node2 nextnode > end > > record node2= > real data > ref node nextnode > end > > It can be 'preprocessed' to normal C code full of struct tags and > whatnot. But: > > * It uses syntax in line with the rest of the language > * It doesn't need to drag in a macro definition > * It only allows 'node' etc to be used, not 'struct node' > * It doesn't create a parallel 'node' symbol in another namespace > * It works fine with circular or mutual references (these can be in > either order) > Oh, that's just incredible! I imagine your language features here have saved at least /minutes/ of your programming life, compared to writing them in C! > >> If you want to write a "while" loop, C has a construct for that - it's >> called "while". > > Which hardly anybody uses! Nearly all for-loops I see that aren't > clearly an iteration are really just while-loops. Your opinions as to what you think people use in C are not something I consider realistic or valuable. > > Most of them don't use 'continue' either so the minor discrepancy I > mentioned is not relevant. > >> It takes a special kind of perverse delight in causing confusion > > ... by writing an obvious while loop as a for-loop. The tweak I > suggested can encourage more people to use the more appropriate kind of > loop. > If it is a while loop, write "while". That's what C programmers do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-17 18:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8qLyI.2052$xn1.1114@fx09.ams4> |
| In reply to | #161465 |
On 17/06/2021 17:35, David Brown wrote:
> On 17/06/2021 15:34, Bart wrote:
>> Which hardly anybody uses! Nearly all for-loops I see that aren't
>> clearly an iteration are really just while-loops.
>
> Your opinions as to what you think people use in C are not something I
> consider realistic or valuable.
It isn't what I think, it's what I see.
Not everyone writes code like David Brown. Or me.
> If it is a while loop, write "while". That's what C programmers do.
If only! Every time I look aat for-loop in other people's code, I have
to analyse it to figure exactly what it is. Here's a case in point:
for (n = num, len = 0; (! len && ! n) || n > 0; len++) {
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-17 11:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <duFyI.21896$R591.16204@fx37.ams4> |
| In reply to | #161451 |
On 17/06/2021 03:39, Andrey Tarasevich wrote:
> On 6/6/2021 5:16 AM, James Harris wrote:
>> Does C, as a language, need to allow its structs to have tags?
>>
>> So could C's struct tags be omitted from the language? If not, what
>> does a struct tag add? Is it something to do with forward declarations
>> or syntactic consistency with union tags, etc?
>
> The tag is absolutely necessary when you want to declare a
> self-referential struct type, like a node in a linked list that must
> contain a pointer to the same type.
>
> Just try declaring a linked list node without using a tag. Report to the
> forum.
>
It's not actually that hard, you just use void*, with the odd cast as
needed:
------------------------------------
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define While for
typedef struct {
int data;
void* next;
} node;
node *head, *end;
void printlist(void) {
node* p=head;
While (;p; p=p->next) {
printf("%d\n",p->data);
}
}
void addnode(int x) {
node* p=malloc(sizeof(node));
p->data=x;
p->next=NULL;
if (head) {
end->next=p;
} else {
head=p;
}
end=p;
}
int main(void) {
node* p;
addnode(100);
addnode(200);
addnode(300);
printlist();
}
------------------------------------
When a cast is needed, you use (node*). No tags required. It's not as
type-safe, but then blame those stupid tags.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-17 08:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <safpb1$5it$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #161456 |
On 6/17/2021 3:29 AM, Bart wrote: > On 17/06/2021 03:39, Andrey Tarasevich wrote: >> On 6/6/2021 5:16 AM, James Harris wrote: >>> Does C, as a language, need to allow its structs to have tags? >>> >>> So could C's struct tags be omitted from the language? If not, what >>> does a struct tag add? Is it something to do with forward >>> declarations or syntactic consistency with union tags, etc? >> >> The tag is absolutely necessary when you want to declare a >> self-referential struct type, like a node in a linked list that must >> contain a pointer to the same type. >> >> Just try declaring a linked list node without using a tag. Report to >> the forum. >> > > It's not actually that hard, you just use void*, with the odd cast as > needed: As I explicitly stated in the post you were responding to: > P.S. Of course, you can get around this by using `void *` pointers and explicit type casts everywhere, but that would still represent a major loss of language functionality. And that is basically the answer to the original question: C language _needs_ struct tags to avoid having to "just use void*, with the odd cast as needed". Having to do the latter would, of course, be an abomination. -- Best regards, Andrey Tarasevich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-17 16:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20210617090939.633@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #161462 |
On 2021-06-17, Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/17/2021 3:29 AM, Bart wrote:
>> On 17/06/2021 03:39, Andrey Tarasevich wrote:
>>> On 6/6/2021 5:16 AM, James Harris wrote:
>>>> Does C, as a language, need to allow its structs to have tags?
>>>>
>>>> So could C's struct tags be omitted from the language? If not, what
>>>> does a struct tag add? Is it something to do with forward
>>>> declarations or syntactic consistency with union tags, etc?
>>>
>>> The tag is absolutely necessary when you want to declare a
>>> self-referential struct type, like a node in a linked list that must
>>> contain a pointer to the same type.
>>>
>>> Just try declaring a linked list node without using a tag. Report to
>>> the forum.
>>>
>>
>> It's not actually that hard, you just use void*, with the odd cast as
>> needed:
>
> As I explicitly stated in the post you were responding to:
>
> > P.S. Of course, you can get around this by using `void *` pointers
> and explicit type casts everywhere, but that would still represent a
> major loss of language functionality.
>
> And that is basically the answer to the original question: C language
> _needs_ struct tags to avoid having to "just use void*, with the odd
> cast as needed". Having to do the latter would, of course, be an
> abomination.
But that's literally untrue true.
C programs need struct tags according to the design of the C language
we are stuck with. The language doesn't need it; the design is not
necessary, and even the C++ dialect shows that:
struct node {
node *next, *prev; // not a reference to the tag namespace
};
While that is a valid point, it is nonproductive and off-topic.
BartC likes to turn every discussion into some unproductive banter with
no useful outcome, about how C could be (or could have been) something else,
but without any concrete action plan to do anything about it.
It is unclear what outcome he's looking for, but judging by the history,
he seems satisfied with amusing himself by insulting comp.lang.c users
by insisting that they do not know any other language and cannot imagine
language design variations or features outside of the C design due
to the proverbial blinders on their eyes, in contrast to his amazingly
broad perspective gained from working on his special language projects
(which have no public repo, no documentation, no test cases, no users).
When you make careless comments like that the C language needs tags for
self-reference in declarations, you're just playing into that.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-17 17:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <U9LyI.145287$gpy1.37016@fx11.ams4> |
| In reply to | #161464 |
On 17/06/2021 17:22, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2021-06-17, Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> wrote: > BartC likes to turn every discussion into some unproductive banter with > no useful outcome, about how C could be (or could have been) something else, > but without any concrete action plan to do anything about it. (That is not true. I've created several alternatives over approx 40 years, for in-house or personal use. Although they weren't really alternatives for at least the first 15 years. The problem is no one is interested in alternatives, and I don't think anyone here has to the power to actually change the language anyway. (Besides, with C being so firmly ensconced as part of Unix and Linux, it isn't going anywhere.) But what some people might have been able to do far better than me - 20+ years ago would have been better - is to have created an up-to-date systems language of a similar ilk, something I would have respected a lot more, that would have become mainstream, and without losing many of the traits that are needed. Instead we end up with ones like Rust and Zig that things harder rather than easier. Zig (2019 version) even banished newlines from source code! (CRLF newlines weren't allowed; they had to be LF only. CRLF have since been allowed; but it still bans hard tabs.)) > It is unclear what outcome he's looking for, but judging by the history, > he seems satisfied with amusing himself by insulting comp.lang.c users I make a point of never insulting anybody online unless they get personal. > by insisting that they do not know any other language and cannot imagine > language design variations or features outside of the C design due > to the proverbial blinders on their eyes, in contrast to his amazingly > broad perspective gained from working on his special language projects > (which have no public repo, no documentation, no test cases, no users). > > When you make careless comments like that the C language needs tags for > self-reference in declarations, you're just playing into that. This was the challenge: AT: > Just try declaring a linked list node without using a tag. Report to > the forum. I responded to it, and supplied example /C/ code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-17 17:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20210617103159.394@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #161466 |
On 2021-06-17, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 17/06/2021 17:22, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2021-06-17, Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> BartC likes to turn every discussion into some unproductive banter with >> no useful outcome, about how C could be (or could have been) something else, >> but without any concrete action plan to do anything about it. > > (That is not true. I've created several alternatives over approx 40 > years, for in-house or personal use. Although they weren't really > alternatives for at least the first 15 years. That is not doing anything the problem of what C is, from the perspective of people who are stuck using it, who come to the newsgroup to discuss about how to use it. > The problem is no one is interested in alternatives, and I don't think No, that isn't the problem. People are absolutely keenly interested in alternatives and using them. Anyone who is using Rust, or C++, or Go is probably interested in C alternatives. Some people using C are also interested in C alternatives, but for whatever pragmatic reasons are using C anyway. People don't go to a comp.lang.c newsgroup to discuss alternatives though; we know where to find alternatives and get help. > anyone here has to the power to actually change the language anyway. If you don't seize the power, you will never have the power. I believe I have the power to change C; if I really wanted to badly enough, I could avail myself of that influence. I would form a plan, identify the roadblocks in it and work on removing them one by one. Changing C is a procedure, a task. Every task has a finite number of steps. First you have to figure out what they are. You might start with the wrong ones. Once you are on the right track though, it's just a matter of taking the first step, then the second and so on. (If the change idea is unreasonable, though, there will likely be an impassable roadblock. Changes are generally expected to be thoroughly backward compatible, so that the vast majority existing programs compile and have an unaltered behavior, and the remainder are only in some dubious bucket we are willing to throw under the bus.) > (Besides, with C being so firmly ensconced as part of Unix and Linux, it > isn't going anywhere.) That is false; the bleeding edge of C is changing, and the GNU C Compiler Collection project is actively maintained, cranking out new releases. > But what some people might have been able to do far better than me - 20+ > years ago would have been better - is to have created an up-to-date 20 years ago isn't coming back though. > Instead we end up with ones like Rust and Zig that things harder rather > than easier. These projects have their reasons though. They are real things in the real world. You can download them from a repo, build them, and run a test suite. You can join a mailing list, web forum or IRC channel or whatever and meet others users. If you don't think Rust and Zig are the answer, the only way is to compete with your own, join those projects to steer their direction, or else forever be complaining that people are making all these various C replacements, but not doing it how you would like. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-17 21:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0fOyI.205832$TPRa.75795@fx01.ams4> |
| In reply to | #161469 |
On 17/06/2021 18:53, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2021-06-17, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
[C alternatives]
> If you don't think Rust and Zig are the answer, the only way is to
> compete with your own, join those projects to steer their direction, or
> else forever be complaining that people are making all these various C
> replacements, but not doing it how you would like.
It isn't really for me. I'm stuck with using my languages for the same
reason I'd be stuck working as self-employed, if I was still working.
But I constantly see the problems people have with C, not here much,
usenet is pretty much dead, but in places like reddit and others, a lot
of things which would otherwise have been a piece of cake if the
language had done things properly.
I just really feel sorry for them, as I can't help.
Many of these are small things that do not warrant switching to a
totally new and very different language (which would introduce 100 new
problems).
But let's take one example of something posted here, someone wanted to
print this:
printf("UINT64_MAX : %lld\n", UINT64_MAX);
C has made it fashionable to make this stuff much harder than it need be
(Zig is worse than C for printing). The full solution for this was (see
stdint.h thread):
#include <stdio.h> # needed for printf
#include <stdint.h> # needed for UINT64_MAX and for inttypes.h
printf("UINT64_MAX : " PRId64 "\n", UINT64_MAX);
(It will be something alone those lines; I'm not going to bother
checking it.)
Basically, they needed to print a number to the console, something that
in the 1970s would have been utterly trivial:
print x
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-17 17:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5de1487f-9750-4fd4-9cda-eb0cee427dc8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #161470 |
On Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 23:27:54 UTC+3, Bart wrote:
> On 17/06/2021 18:53, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> > On 2021-06-17, Bart <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> [C alternatives]
> > If you don't think Rust and Zig are the answer, the only way is to
> > compete with your own, join those projects to steer their direction, or
> > else forever be complaining that people are making all these various C
> > replacements, but not doing it how you would like.
> It isn't really for me. I'm stuck with using my languages for the same
> reason I'd be stuck working as self-employed, if I was still working.
>
> But I constantly see the problems people have with C, not here much,
> usenet is pretty much dead, but in places like reddit and others, a lot
> of things which would otherwise have been a piece of cake if the
> language had done things properly.
>
> I just really feel sorry for them, as I can't help.
>
> Many of these are small things that do not warrant switching to a
> totally new and very different language (which would introduce 100 new
> problems).
>
> But let's take one example of something posted here, someone wanted to
> print this:
>
> printf("UINT64_MAX : %lld\n", UINT64_MAX);
>
> C has made it fashionable to make this stuff much harder than it need be
> (Zig is worse than C for printing). The full solution for this was (see
> stdint.h thread):
>
> #include <stdio.h> # needed for printf
> #include <stdint.h> # needed for UINT64_MAX and for inttypes.h
>
> printf("UINT64_MAX : " PRId64 "\n", UINT64_MAX);
>
> (It will be something alone those lines; I'm not going to bother
> checking it.)
You did not use %:
printf("%" PRId64 "\n", UINT64_MAX);
Yes such not overly trivial way, but trivial enough.
> Basically, they needed to print a number to the console, something that
> in the 1970s would have been utterly trivial:
>
> print x
In the 1970s what is currently called 'UINT64_MAX' was utterly trivially
called 'x'? I think you misremember.
The trouble only starts when you output UINT64_MAX as you will see that
all these excels and libreoffices to where someone might want to paste
it fail to process it. They fail gracefully and silently by showing wrong
results. So you will need more C and more C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-18 11:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <yw_yI.212250$TPRa.93209@fx01.ams4> |
| In reply to | #161471 |
On 18/06/2021 01:58, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 23:27:54 UTC+3, Bart wrote:
>> But let's take one example of something posted here, someone wanted to
>> print this:
>>
>> printf("UINT64_MAX : %lld\n", UINT64_MAX);
>>
>> C has made it fashionable to make this stuff much harder than it need be
>> (Zig is worse than C for printing). The full solution for this was (see
>> stdint.h thread):
>>
>> #include <stdio.h> # needed for printf
>> #include <stdint.h> # needed for UINT64_MAX and for inttypes.h
>>
>> printf("UINT64_MAX : " PRId64 "\n", UINT64_MAX);
>>
>> (It will be something alone those lines; I'm not going to bother
>> checking it.)
>
> You did not use %:
>
> printf("%" PRId64 "\n", UINT64_MAX);
>
> Yes such not overly trivial way, but trivial enough.
You helped make my point for me. What a palaver to just print a number!
And so easy to get wrong.
>> Basically, they needed to print a number to the console, something that
>> in the 1970s would have been utterly trivial:
>>
>> print x
>
> In the 1970s what is currently called 'UINT64_MAX' was utterly trivially
> called 'x'? I think you misremember.
UINT64_MAX is just a number. That is not the main issue here. Given the
existence of such a value, you should be able to do:
print UINT64_MAX
plus whatever extra syntax the language requires. #includes, inttype.h,
"%" and "PRId64" is not mere syntax.
To get on to the MAX part, If I do this in my language, it is just:
println =u64.max
.max can be applied to any integer type or expression. The "=" adds the
label that is present in the C. The output is:
MAX(U64)= 18446744073709551615
> The trouble only starts when you output UINT64_MAX as you will see that
> all these excels and libreoffices to where someone might want to paste
> it fail to process it. They fail gracefully and silently by showing wrong
> results. So you will need more C and more C.
How is this relevant? A language shouldn't allow you to just write:
print(a)
because some extreme values of a, IF you were to paste them elsewhere,
might cause problems with buggy software? How would adding more C fix that?
When I paste this value, it is just a string anyway. BTW here's the next
one up:
println =u128.max
It shows:
MAX(U128)= 340282366920938463463374607431768211455
A u128 type is merely double the word size of the current crop of 64-bit
machines. A systems language should deal with this stuff effortlessly.
If I paste /that/ value into Google, I get a list of 128-bit resources.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Guillaume <message@bottle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-17 19:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sag0s6$mta$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #161462 |
Le 17/06/2021 à 17:22, Andrey Tarasevich a écrit : > On 6/17/2021 3:29 AM, Bart wrote: >> On 17/06/2021 03:39, Andrey Tarasevich wrote: >>> On 6/6/2021 5:16 AM, James Harris wrote: >>>> Does C, as a language, need to allow its structs to have tags? >>>> >>>> So could C's struct tags be omitted from the language? If not, what >>>> does a struct tag add? Is it something to do with forward >>>> declarations or syntactic consistency with union tags, etc? >>> >>> The tag is absolutely necessary when you want to declare a >>> self-referential struct type, like a node in a linked list that must >>> contain a pointer to the same type. >>> >>> Just try declaring a linked list node without using a tag. Report to >>> the forum. >>> >> >> It's not actually that hard, you just use void*, with the odd cast as >> needed: > > As I explicitly stated in the post you were responding to: > > > P.S. Of course, you can get around this by using `void *` pointers > and explicit type casts everywhere, but that would still represent a > major loss of language functionality. > > And that is basically the answer to the original question: C language > _needs_ struct tags to avoid having to "just use void*, with the odd > cast as needed". Having to do the latter would, of course, be an > abomination. Yup. Using void * can be powerful but bypasses type checking, and not only that, but you also lose the self-documentation a proper type provides. Regarding casts, they are usually not needed though if you always assign the void * pointer (for instance here, the 'next' member) to a pointer to the struct, and conversely. So if your pointer to node is 'Node', for instance, something like 'Node = Node->next' is perfectly valid without any cast. Or 'Node2->next = Node1'. Casts would be needed if you directly want to access a member from the 'next' pointer, but there are lots of ways to avoid that, so that point is relatively moot.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 20 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web