Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #63176 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-06-10 22:32 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-06-10 23:07 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 182 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-10 22:32 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2015-06-11 07:52 +0200
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-11 07:19 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-11 15:46 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2015-06-11 11:23 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-11 12:08 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-11 15:44 -0400
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-11 12:55 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-11 16:29 -0400
Re: Reason for segmentation violation gordonb.h0fbo@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-06-17 23:51 -0500
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-17 23:10 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation gordonb.0vo9r@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-06-18 03:30 -0500
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-18 02:40 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-11 21:00 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2015-06-11 19:58 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-11 23:42 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-12 08:33 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-12 02:36 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-12 11:07 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-06-12 04:55 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-12 13:17 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-12 13:32 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-12 13:20 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-13 23:55 -0700
Restrictions on inline functions (Was: Reason for segmentation violation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-14 10:30 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-12 11:10 -0400
Re: Reason for segmentation violation David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-12 08:35 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-12 12:21 -0400
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-12 10:48 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-12 19:12 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-12 08:49 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-12 09:13 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-13 08:55 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-12 08:56 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-12 09:41 +0000
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-12 08:29 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-14 00:03 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2015-06-14 00:58 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-14 02:14 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-14 04:26 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-14 06:29 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-14 15:06 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-14 07:25 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-14 16:59 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-14 11:51 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-14 16:43 -0400
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-14 14:16 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-14 20:35 -0400
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-15 01:19 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 03:57 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-15 12:26 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 04:47 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-15 15:02 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 07:08 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-15 18:56 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 20:09 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-16 09:31 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-16 10:09 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-16 02:36 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-16 11:01 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-16 12:37 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-16 08:40 -0400
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-16 10:32 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-17 07:54 -0400
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 05:28 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-18 00:34 -0400
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 09:13 +0200
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-19 21:17 -0400
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 23:28 +0200
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 05:26 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-15 06:20 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 14:25 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-15 07:52 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 18:29 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-15 11:15 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-18 20:41 +0000
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-15 18:48 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-15 11:04 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-18 20:44 +0000
Re: Reason for segmentation violation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-19 10:39 +0200
Re: Reason for segmentation violation gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-06-16 00:58 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-18 20:40 +0000
Re: Reason for segmentation violation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-18 17:06 -0400
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-18 14:56 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-18 23:04 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-18 18:18 -0400
Re: Reason for segmentation violation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-19 10:26 +0200
Re: Reason for segmentation violation David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 08:57 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-15 08:54 -0400
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 06:24 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-15 14:32 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 05:43 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-14 23:28 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-14 16:31 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-15 01:27 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 05:34 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-15 15:00 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 20:37 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-16 09:58 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-16 10:37 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 17:51 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 21:02 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-16 00:51 -0400
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 22:30 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-17 00:35 -0400
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-06-19 18:51 +0200
Re: Reason for segmentation violation luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 22:40 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 23:23 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-16 11:07 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-16 23:54 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-17 10:51 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 03:46 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 04:17 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-17 14:02 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 06:15 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-17 15:34 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 07:58 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-17 16:04 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 08:16 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 14:57 +0200
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-18 15:35 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-18 15:44 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-18 08:18 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-18 16:42 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-17 08:19 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-17 16:35 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 08:49 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-17 11:56 -0400
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 09:46 +0200
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-17 09:14 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation gordonb.446bm@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-06-18 01:56 -0500
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 09:54 +0200
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-17 09:08 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 16:53 +0200
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 16:32 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 18:21 +0200
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-22 16:33 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 18:20 +0200
Re: Reason for segmentation violation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-22 13:05 -0400
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 19:47 +0200
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-17 13:52 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 06:05 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-17 15:39 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 08:02 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-17 16:12 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 10:46 +0200
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-17 16:12 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 08:28 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-18 07:32 +1200
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 22:02 +0200
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-17 13:16 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 22:32 +0200
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 06:52 +0200
Re: Reason for segmentation violation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-17 16:16 -0400
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 22:44 +0200
Re: Reason for segmentation violation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-17 17:39 -0400
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-18 01:57 -0500
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 09:29 +0200
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-17 13:57 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 23:10 +0200
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-17 14:22 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 23:41 +0200
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-18 00:40 -0400
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 09:18 +0200
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-17 08:52 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 09:27 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-17 11:00 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-14 07:48 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-14 16:53 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2015-06-14 10:59 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-14 11:45 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-14 20:01 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-14 12:40 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-14 21:00 +0100
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-14 13:13 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-14 13:17 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-14 16:36 -0400
Re: Reason for segmentation violation "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-14 13:43 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-14 14:50 -0400
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2015-06-12 03:21 -0700
Re: Reason for segmentation violation Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2015-06-10 23:07 -0700
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-16 11:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mlos3j$ut0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #63340 |
On 16/06/15 10:36, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 10:09:21 AM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>> If the amount of memory taken up by the character depends on the
>> character, though, mystring[idx] will only work on /some/ of the
>> characters. For example, you couldn't loop like this:
>>
>> for(idx = 0; idx < n; idx++)
>> {
>> draw_glyph(mystring[idx]);
>> }
>>
>> because for /some/ characters, the characters whose code points are made
>> up from multiple bytes, that would print the wrong thing.
>>
> Looping through isn't a problem
I didn't say it was a problem. I used it as a simple example of how
multi-byte characters can't be accessed directly using mystring[idx]
without a little arithmetic to find out where they start.
You then go on to illustrate my point further:
>
> instead of
>
> for( idx = 0; idx < n; idx++)
>
> you write
>
> for(ptr = start; ptr < end; ptr += utf8_skip(ptr))
In other words, you do some arithmetic to find out where the characters
start.
<snip>
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-16 12:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87si9ryjd6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #63341 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 16/06/15 10:36, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 10:09:21 AM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>
>>> If the amount of memory taken up by the character depends on the
>>> character, though, mystring[idx] will only work on /some/ of the
>>> characters. For example, you couldn't loop like this:
>>>
>>> for(idx = 0; idx < n; idx++)
>>> {
>>> draw_glyph(mystring[idx]);
>>> }
>>>
>>> because for /some/ characters, the characters whose code points are made
>>> up from multiple bytes, that would print the wrong thing.
>>>
>> Looping through isn't a problem
>
> I didn't say it was a problem. I used it as a simple example of how
> multi-byte characters can't be accessed directly using mystring[idx]
> without a little arithmetic to find out where they start.
>
> You then go on to illustrate my point further:
>
>>
>> instead of
>>
>> for( idx = 0; idx < n; idx++)
>>
>> you write
>>
>> for(ptr = start; ptr < end; ptr += utf8_skip(ptr))
>
> In other words, you do some arithmetic to find out where the
> characters start.
Though even this slightly over states the trouble, since you very often
have the skip count to hand:
cp = mystring;
while (*cp)
cp += draw_glyph(cp);
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-16 08:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <JOUfx.183561$ag1.129181@fx21.iad> |
| In reply to | #63326 |
On 6/15/15 11:09 PM, Morten W. Petersen wrote: > On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 7:56:47 PM UTC+2, Bart wrote: > [...] >> I think the Python language uses a scheme strings are encoded internally >> as either 8, 16 or 32-bit characters depending on what the content >> requires. So ASCII-only needs only 8 bits. > > Yep, this document describes how that's implemented: > > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0393/ > > [...] >> The advantage is that it gives you the ability to randomly index >> individual code-points or characters within a string, compared with UTF8 >> for example. (Also, you don't have to keep reminding yourself exactly >> what the difference is between code-points and characters..) > > Well, with some abstractions it would be possible to have any kind of internal representation of the Unicode characters. > > I'm not sure what you mean when you say randomly index individual characters within a string? > > -Morten > Perhaps some examples of when you would want to do "random indexing" might help. If you are building a screen text editor, you might want to find the nth character on the line, because the cursor is in the nth column. With multi-unit coding like UTF-8 or UTF-16, you need to scan through the string to find the nth character. With a single unit coding, you could just index the array to find the point. Another case would be to chop/fold a line at a given length, and there you again would like to just index forward to find that point. The one problem here about UCS-4 is that you still will need to do this if you are really concerned about "visible characters" as a that is NOT what a Unicode codepoint is (it almost is, but there are exceptions). A Unicode codepoint might represent something non-printing, like a control code. There also are some displayed characters that take multiple code points to define, a base character and one (or more) combining characters. Combining characters add pieces to the base, the little accent marks on some characters (or vowel points). Many of these combinations (of accents) are given a single character because they were common enough. Many more are not, especially when dealing with vowel points. So the Nth character on a display won't necessarily be the Nth code point in the string. (In one sense, going to UCS-4 has added traps as the cases are much rarer, so might not be found as quickly, with a multi-code-unit encoding you KNOW you will have the issue, so will have the coding in place to handle the common issues, and just need some refinement when you stumble on the rarer case).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-16 10:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aa3fd482-6da6-4b77-94b2-fb32a92e1d02@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #63344 |
On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 2:40:21 PM UTC+2, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/15 11:09 PM, Morten W. Petersen wrote: [...] > > I'm not sure what you mean when you say randomly index individual characters within a string? [...] > Perhaps some examples of when you would want to do "random indexing" > might help. > > If you are building a screen text editor, you might want to find the nth > character on the line, because the cursor is in the nth column. With > multi-unit coding like UTF-8 or UTF-16, you need to scan through the > string to find the nth character. With a single unit coding, you could > just index the array to find the point. > > Another case would be to chop/fold a line at a given length, and there > you again would like to just index forward to find that point. OK, I get it. Well, if a file is loaded, one could have a list of byte indexes where for example every five thousandth Unicode character is listed and indexing a character would be a lot quicker than scanning through the entire string. This adds complexity though. -Morten
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-17 07:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <xddgx.1729$ji3.1608@fx21.iad> |
| In reply to | #63352 |
On 6/16/15 1:32 PM, Morten W. Petersen wrote: > On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 2:40:21 PM UTC+2, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/15 11:09 PM, Morten W. Petersen wrote: > [...] >>> I'm not sure what you mean when you say randomly index individual characters within a string? > [...] >> Perhaps some examples of when you would want to do "random indexing" >> might help. >> >> If you are building a screen text editor, you might want to find the nth >> character on the line, because the cursor is in the nth column. With >> multi-unit coding like UTF-8 or UTF-16, you need to scan through the >> string to find the nth character. With a single unit coding, you could >> just index the array to find the point. >> >> Another case would be to chop/fold a line at a given length, and there >> you again would like to just index forward to find that point. > > OK, I get it. Well, if a file is loaded, one could have a list of > byte indexes where for example every five thousandth Unicode > character is listed and indexing a character would be a lot quicker > than scanning through the entire string. > > This adds complexity though. > > -Morten > You could do that if at some point the program might get request to find an arbitrary point in the file as specified by an index by a "Code Point" index. Much more common is a requirement to be able to save a location and come back to it, in this case multi-byte encodings don't cause problems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-17 05:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b1b8a5ea-587a-411e-aaec-9bf0d2484635@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #63397 |
On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 1:54:14 PM UTC+2, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/16/15 1:32 PM, Morten W. Petersen wrote: [...] > > > > OK, I get it. Well, if a file is loaded, one could have a list of > > byte indexes where for example every five thousandth Unicode > > character is listed and indexing a character would be a lot quicker > > than scanning through the entire string. > > > This adds complexity though. [...] > You could do that if at some point the program might get request to find > an arbitrary point in the file as specified by an index by a "Code > Point" index. > > Much more common is a requirement to be able to save a location and come > back to it, in this case multi-byte encodings don't cause problems. Mm. Well, the internal storage will be either 32 bits or 21 bits, and that's it. I don't see any good arguments for other encodings internally. From what I've gleaned on the net, some think UTF16 is the best compromise, but 5 bits more for an "uncompressed" representation seems better for the project goals. I guess the only things that go for UTF16 internally vs. 21 bits is that for data that contains mostly Unicode characters with a low value, storage and searching is faster in UTF16. But then again, threading or multiple processes could "unpack" the 21-bit storage while another process does the actual search. On the other side, I can't really see a lot of cases where a string search through an entire XML file is necessary since XML is structured. As for intergrating with other applications, maybe some reader and writer functions working with certain types is a good idea. -Morten
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-18 00:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <6Trgx.13907$4u4.1163@fx25.iad> |
| In reply to | #63400 |
On 6/17/15 8:28 AM, Morten W. Petersen wrote: > On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 1:54:14 PM UTC+2, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/16/15 1:32 PM, Morten W. Petersen wrote: > [...] >>> >>> OK, I get it. Well, if a file is loaded, one could have a list of >>> byte indexes where for example every five thousandth Unicode >>> character is listed and indexing a character would be a lot quicker >>> than scanning through the entire string. > >>> This adds complexity though. > [...] >> You could do that if at some point the program might get request to find >> an arbitrary point in the file as specified by an index by a "Code >> Point" index. >> >> Much more common is a requirement to be able to save a location and come >> back to it, in this case multi-byte encodings don't cause problems. > > Mm. Well, the internal storage will be either 32 bits or 21 bits, > and that's it. I don't see any good arguments for other encodings > internally. From what I've gleaned on the net, some think UTF16 is > the best compromise, but 5 bits more for an "uncompressed" > representation seems better for the project goals. > 32 bit has some advantages. It (like your 21 bit format) is directly indexable (but I am not sure that is really a need in your application, nothing in XML uses "character offsets"). It does also have an advantage of simplicity in access. Its biggest disadvantage is it take a lot more space than the other formats. For external formats the space cost becomes a time cost (external access tends to be slow), which is why it tends not to be used. Your 21 bit format will save some space over the 32 bit, but it will be "expensive" to access. If you need the random indexing (which like I said I don't see in your requirements) then it might make sense. Otherwise, I suspect you will see similar, if not greater savings with a UTF encoding. UTF-8 and UTF-16 will always save space of UCS-4, but maybe not your 21 bit format. Note that the XML format uses a fair amount of base ASCII characters for formatting, which gives UTF-8 an advantage. The one major case where UTF-16 gets the advantage is data with a lot of CJK characters (or other characters in that part of the code space). Many of the CJK characters take one 16 bit UTF-16 code unit but 3 8 bit UTF-8 code units, so if you have more of these than base ASCII characters you save space. UTF-16 really got started as UCS-2, when they thought that Unicode could be a 16 bit character set. When they realized that it wasn't going to happen they invented the surrogate pair system to expand it to 20+ bits (it really isn't a full 21 bits, as it only goes up to 10FFFF, being really a 20 bit space + a 16 bit space). The decision to limit UTF-16 to only using 2 code units maximum also limits UTF-8 to needing at most 4 code units (UTF-8 originally allowed up to 6 bytes to represent a full 31 bit character space). > > I guess the only things that go for UTF16 internally vs. 21 bits is > that for data that contains mostly Unicode characters with a low > value, storage and searching is faster in UTF16. > > But then again, threading or multiple processes could "unpack" the > 21-bit storage while another process does the actual search. > > On the other side, I can't really see a lot of cases where a string > search through an entire XML file is necessary since XML is structured. If all you have is the XML file, searching is a decent way to find something. The alternative is to read the XML, parse it, and build a data structure as defined by the file. > As for intergrating with other applications, maybe some reader and > writer functions working with certain types is a good idea. > > -Morten >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-18 09:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mltr2k$lbl$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #63471 |
On 18.06.2015 06:34, Richard Damon wrote:
[...]
> 32 bit has some advantages. It (like your 21 bit format) is directly
> indexable (but I am not sure that is really a need in your application,
> nothing in XML uses "character offsets"). It does also have an advantage
> of simplicity in access. Its biggest disadvantage is it take a lot more
> space than the other formats. For external formats the space cost
> becomes a time cost (external access tends to be slow), which is why it
> tends not to be used.
Yes. One thing I'm fairly sure will be a used feature is searching
for nodes and node names.
Say for example you have an XML document:
<root>
<entry>
<title>This is entry 1</title>
<description>This is the description</description>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>This is entry 2</title>
<description>This is the description of #2</description>
</entry>
</root>
And you want to present each entry to the user.. then the XPath
expression /root/entry/title would return 2 references to title.
Having an index that keeps for example 1 32-bit Unicode character and
1 pointer on a 32-bit system and 2 Unicode characters and 1 pointer
on a 64-bit system could give a significant speedup in lookups if
the actual internal representation of an entire element name is
in 21 bits.
> Your 21 bit format will save some space over the 32 bit, but it will be
> "expensive" to access. If you need the random indexing (which like I
> said I don't see in your requirements) then it might make sense.
> Otherwise, I suspect you will see similar, if not greater savings with a
> UTF encoding.
Again it depends on the characters used, how much is markup, which
ASCII element attribute names are used etc. etc.
> UTF-8 and UTF-16 will always save space of UCS-4, but maybe not your 21
> bit format. Note that the XML format uses a fair amount of base ASCII
> characters for formatting, which gives UTF-8 an advantage. The one major
> case where UTF-16 gets the advantage is data with a lot of CJK
> characters (or other characters in that part of the code space). Many of
> the CJK characters take one 16 bit UTF-16 code unit but 3 8 bit UTF-8
> code units, so if you have more of these than base ASCII characters you
> save space.
>
> UTF-16 really got started as UCS-2, when they thought that Unicode could
> be a 16 bit character set. When they realized that it wasn't going to
> happen they invented the surrogate pair system to expand it to 20+ bits
> (it really isn't a full 21 bits, as it only goes up to 10FFFF, being
> really a 20 bit space + a 16 bit space). The decision to limit UTF-16 to
> only using 2 code units maximum also limits UTF-8 to needing at most 4
> code units (UTF-8 originally allowed up to 6 bytes to represent a full
> 31 bit character space).
Yeah, interesting history about UTF. Backwards compatability makes it
easier to sell something new/enhanced to an established ecosystem.
> If all you have is the XML file, searching is a decent way to find
> something. The alternative is to read the XML, parse it, and build a
> data structure as defined by the file.
Hmm. Well I'm not sure that's such a good idea. To take one example,
say you have
<element2>123</element>
If you search for the text "2>1" looking for a text string you might
end up with the wrong thing. So characters in XML have a meaning
depending on which context they are in.
-Morten
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-19 21:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Oa3hx.5916$XL.994@fx27.iad> |
| In reply to | #63481 |
On 6/18/15 3:13 AM, Morten W. Petersen wrote: > On 18.06.2015 06:34, Richard Damon wrote: > [...] >> 32 bit has some advantages. It (like your 21 bit format) is directly >> indexable (but I am not sure that is really a need in your application, >> nothing in XML uses "character offsets"). It does also have an advantage >> of simplicity in access. Its biggest disadvantage is it take a lot more >> space than the other formats. For external formats the space cost >> becomes a time cost (external access tends to be slow), which is why it >> tends not to be used. > > Yes. One thing I'm fairly sure will be a used feature is searching > for nodes and node names. > > Say for example you have an XML document: > > <root> > <entry> > <title>This is entry 1</title> > <description>This is the description</description> > </entry> > <entry> > <title>This is entry 2</title> > <description>This is the description of #2</description> > </entry> > </root> > > And you want to present each entry to the user.. then the XPath > expression /root/entry/title would return 2 references to title. > > Having an index that keeps for example 1 32-bit Unicode character and > 1 pointer on a 32-bit system and 2 Unicode characters and 1 pointer > on a 64-bit system could give a significant speedup in lookups if > the actual internal representation of an entire element name is > in 21 bits. > Building an index like this does NOT require the "random access" property described. The pre-parsing stage building the index just needs to record where the record was in the data (it knows, as it just scanned through to find it), ... >> If all you have is the XML file, searching is a decent way to find >> something. The alternative is to read the XML, parse it, and build a >> data structure as defined by the file. > > Hmm. Well I'm not sure that's such a good idea. To take one example, > say you have > > <element2>123</element> > > If you search for the text "2>1" looking for a text string you might > end up with the wrong thing. So characters in XML have a meaning > depending on which context they are in. > > -Morten I really suspect that search are likely NOT just find a give string, but find something as the "value" of something, maybe specifying that something so you aren't going to just use a "dumb" string search, but a parsing search.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-20 23:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mm4lsv$5ne$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #63651 |
On 20.06.2015 03:17, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/18/15 3:13 AM, Morten W. Petersen wrote: >> On 18.06.2015 06:34, Richard Damon wrote: [...] >>> If all you have is the XML file, searching is a decent way to find >>> something. The alternative is to read the XML, parse it, and build a >>> data structure as defined by the file. >> >> Hmm. Well I'm not sure that's such a good idea. To take one example, >> say you have >> >> <element2>123</element> >> >> If you search for the text "2>1" looking for a text string you might >> end up with the wrong thing. So characters in XML have a meaning >> depending on which context they are in. >> >> -Morten > > I really suspect that search are likely NOT just find a give string, but > find something as the "value" of something, maybe specifying that > something so you aren't going to just use a "dumb" string search, but a > parsing search. Yeah, fair enough, I didn't think of that when I replied. But such a search function I think would be hard to do the right way. Say for example you have a 10 GB XML file, and you're looking for an element with a value of 496867910560, and that value sits at circa the middle of the file, deeply nested in other XML elements. When you hit the value, you have to find its context. Meaning you have to look all the way backwards to see if that value is valid, that it isn't nested in for example a CDATA section or a comment (<!--) section. If it isn't valid, you have to look for the next possible match. So it looks to me in any case that a good search feature needs to parse and structure the data internally first. -Morten
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-15 05:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8a90ee1e-ac03-42dd-911a-59a1ae0969e1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #63272 |
On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 7:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bart wrote: > You will have to take care with sorting. You don't want Australia > being seen as having priority over Zimbabwe for example, nor the > other way around. :-) Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-15 06:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0fdfbee5-7dda-4c68-b851-fc48c25a5b9c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #63272 |
On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 12:26:23 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote: > > You will have to take care with sorting. You don't want Australia being > seen as having priority over Zimbabwe for example, nor the other way around. > Do you call our country Great Britain or the United Kingdom? In fact we use the two terms almost interchangeably (technically Great Britain is the big island, the United Kingdom the regions governed from the London parliament, and the commonwealth all the islands and territories that recognise the Queen as their sovereign). But politically sensitive decisions can be unavoidably thrown up. The term "The British Isles" is used a lot in Northern Ireland, as something acceptable to both unionists and republicans.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-15 14:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mlmjl6$kas$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #63279 |
On 15/06/15 14:20, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 12:26:23 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote: >> >> You will have to take care with sorting. You don't want Australia being >> seen as having priority over Zimbabwe for example, nor the other way around. >> > Do you call our country Great Britain or the United Kingdom? England. :-) Except, of course, where alphabetical precedence is a Good Thing, in which case it's called Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaengland. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-15 07:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln381tnhvo.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #63283 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 15/06/15 14:20, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 12:26:23 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote:
>>>
>>> You will have to take care with sorting. You don't want Australia being
>>> seen as having priority over Zimbabwe for example, nor the other way around.
>>>
>> Do you call our country Great Britain or the United Kingdom?
>
> England. :-)
>
> Except, of course, where alphabetical precedence is a Good Thing, in
> which case it's called Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaengland.
@merica!
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-15 18:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mln1ui$hmk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #63289 |
On 15/06/15 15:52, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>> On 15/06/15 14:20, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 12:26:23 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You will have to take care with sorting. You don't want Australia being
>>>> seen as having priority over Zimbabwe for example, nor the other way around.
>>>>
>>> Do you call our country Great Britain or the United Kingdom?
>>
>> England. :-)
>>
>> Except, of course, where alphabetical precedence is a Good Thing, in
>> which case it's called Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaengland.
>
> @merica!
Error in line 15: unknown symbol.
It is a little-known fact that '@' is not part of the basic C character
set. Please choose again, selecting from:
the 26 upper-case letters of the English alphabet
A B C D E F G H I J K L M
N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
the 26 lower-case letters of the English alphabet
a b c d e f g h i j k l m
n o p q r s t u v w x y z
the 10 decimal digits
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
the following 29 graphic characters
! " # % & ' ( ) * + , - . / :
; < = > ? [ \ ] ^ _ { | } ~
the space character, and control characters representing horizontal
tab, vertical tab, and form feed.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-15 11:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lntwu8n8hq.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #63297 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 15/06/15 15:52, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>> On 15/06/15 14:20, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>> On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 12:26:23 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You will have to take care with sorting. You don't want Australia being
>>>>> seen as having priority over Zimbabwe for example, nor the other way around.
>>>>>
>>>> Do you call our country Great Britain or the United Kingdom?
>>>
>>> England. :-)
>>>
>>> Except, of course, where alphabetical precedence is a Good Thing, in
>>> which case it's called Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaengland.
>>
>> @merica!
>
> Error in line 15: unknown symbol.
>
> It is a little-known fact that '@' is not part of the basic C
> character set. Please choose again, selecting from:
[snip]
/\merica!
--
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 | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-18 20:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55832cbc.4348968@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #63303 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > > On 15/06/15 15:52, Keith Thompson wrote: > >> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > >>> On 15/06/15 14:20, Malcolm McLean wrote: > >>>> On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 12:26:23 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> You will have to take care with sorting. You don't want Australia being > >>>>> seen as having priority over Zimbabwe for example, nor the other way around. > >>>>> > >>>> Do you call our country Great Britain or the United Kingdom? > >>> > >>> England. :-) > >>> > >>> Except, of course, where alphabetical precedence is a Good Thing, in > >>> which case it's called Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaengland. > >> > >> @merica! > > > > Error in line 15: unknown symbol. > > > > It is a little-known fact that '@' is not part of the basic C > > character set. Please choose again, selecting from: > [snip] > > /\merica! Yeah, but is that Hye Brasil you're talking about, or the Canadian Provinces? Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-15 18:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mln33f$mjd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #63279 |
On 15/06/2015 14:20, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 12:26:23 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote: >> >> You will have to take care with sorting. You don't want Australia being >> seen as having priority over Zimbabwe for example, nor the other way around. >> > Do you call our country Great Britain or the United Kingdom? In fact we use the > two terms almost interchangeably I use 'England' interchangeably with 'the UK', 'Britain', and 'Great Britain'. I think a lot of people do. That would probably annoy those who come from Scotland, Wales or NI. (technically Great Britain is the big island, > the United Kingdom the regions governed from the London parliament, and > the commonwealth all the islands and territories that recognise the Queen as > their sovereign). > But politically sensitive decisions can be unavoidably thrown up. The term > "The British Isles" is used a lot in Northern Ireland, as something acceptable > to both unionists and republicans. A lot of us also get confused so whether it is England that is a country, or the UK. (And if the UK is a country, how did they manage to wangle four national soccer teams? And still lose...) Best not to think about it too much. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-15 11:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5fc0364f-aafb-4e0a-856d-49b8053a0bfc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #63300 |
On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 6:48:53 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote: > > A lot of us also get confused so whether it is England that is a > country, or the UK. (And if the UK is a country, how did they manage to > wangle four national soccer teams? And still lose...) > England is a country. The UK is a state.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-18 20:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55832cec.4397140@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #63302 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 6:48:53 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote: > > > > A lot of us also get confused so whether it is England that is a > > country, or the UK. (And if the UK is a country, how did they manage to > > wangle four national soccer teams? And still lose...) > > > England is a country. The UK is a state. England is a country; the UK is the vestiges of its erstwhile empire; Scotland is a subjugated province. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web