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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #7649 > unrolled thread

Re: A C without void*

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: A C without void* "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-05 00:29 -0500
    Re: A C without void* Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-05 08:46 -0700
    Re: A C without void* Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-07 22:11 +0300
      Re: A C without void* James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-07 22:46 -0400
      Re: A C without void* Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-09 02:58 +0100
      Re: A C without void* Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-09 07:18 +0100
        Re: A C without void* Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-10 04:39 +0300

#7649 — Re: A C without void*

Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> Why does C have void* ? Imagine a C' where the functionality that
> void* provides would be provided instead by unsigned char* plus what
> unsigned char* usually does. In what way would C' be inferior to C ?''

Well you fucked up that question royally. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#7668

"MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> writes:
> Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>> Why does C have void* ? Imagine a C' where the functionality that
>> void* provides would be provided instead by unsigned char* plus what
>> unsigned char* usually does. In what way would C' be inferior to C ?''
>
> Well you fucked up that question royally. 

The question was posted over 3 months ago.  Why are you responding with
this nonsense now?

For that matter, why are you posting here at all?  Do you intend to make
any constructive contributions here?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#7872

"MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> writes:

> Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> > Why does C have void* ? Imagine a C' where the functionality that
> > void* provides would be provided instead by unsigned char* plus what
> > unsigned char* usually does. In what way would C' be inferior to C ?''
> 
> Well you fucked up that question royally. 

Can anyone who uses GNUS remind me how to view full headers of a post?
(Ctrl-H A, Ctrl-H M, etc. were no help, obviosuly I'm looking for the
wrong keywords).

Of course I could just killfile the guy from his posting name, but I 
always like to see if there are additional clues in the headers for 
creating a broader filter that might be more useful. Idiots are prone 
to morph, for example, and anonymisers have a notoriously low SNR.

I used to know how to view them, but after taking a year off usenet,
I've forgotten all my motor-memory keystrokes (and the C-x C-c that 
I've learnt from my current mailer makes GNUS quite a fun experience!).

Cheers,
Phil
-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." -- Matthew Vernon

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

#7919

On 07/07/2011 03:11 PM, Phil Carmody wrote:
> "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> writes:
> 
>> Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>> Why does C have void* ? Imagine a C' where the functionality that
>>> void* provides would be provided instead by unsigned char* plus what
>>> unsigned char* usually does. In what way would C' be inferior to C ?''
>>
>> Well you fucked up that question royally. 
> 
> Can anyone who uses GNUS remind me how to view full headers of a post?
> (Ctrl-H A, Ctrl-H M, etc. were no help, obviosuly I'm looking for the
> wrong keywords).

I don't know anything about GNUS, but here are the complete headers for
the message you were responding to, as received by my newsreader:

Path:
mx04.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: A C without void*
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 00:29:43 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <iuu7ft$h9p$1@dont-email.me>
References: <%1thp.70888$2_5.22463@newsfe25.ams2>
Injection-Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 05:29:33 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
posting-host="NXpnGJaJbeEzJsr8SjnHgA";
	logging-data="17721";
mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18UqGREuZrqQM1Oiqaxy7BM"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xFMlZ3GHR77BpQ852A2BxfpfPLw=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Xref: feeder.eternal-september.org comp.lang.c:86735

-- 
James Kuyper

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

#8019

Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
<snip and OT>
> Can anyone who uses GNUS remind me how to view full headers of a post?
> (Ctrl-H A, Ctrl-H M, etc. were no help, obviosuly I'm looking for the
> wrong keywords).

gnus-summary-toggle-header usually bound to 't' and to 'W' 't' as well
as the menu command <Article> <Washing> <Toggle header> in a summary
buffer.  Works in an article buffer as well though the menu binding is
different.

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

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

#8024

Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> Can anyone who uses GNUS remind me how to view full headers of a post?
> (Ctrl-H A, Ctrl-H M, etc. were no help, obviosuly I'm looking for the
> wrong keywords).

ctrl-u g ("show raw message")
-- 
Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk

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

#8049

Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> writes:
> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> 
> > Can anyone who uses GNUS remind me how to view full headers of a post?
> > (Ctrl-H A, Ctrl-H M, etc. were no help, obviosuly I'm looking for the
> > wrong keywords).
> 
> ctrl-u g ("show raw message")

I think I used to use 't', as Ben suggested, but that also looks like 
a useful one to remember too.

Cheers,
Phil
-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." -- Matthew Vernon

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web