Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #63278 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-06-15 14:08 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-07-14 13:14 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 442 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-15 14:08 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 14:23 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 09:30 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 18:01 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-16 09:44 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-16 18:06 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-16 19:22 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-16 19:33 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-16 14:53 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 09:54 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-17 11:04 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 11:11 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-18 12:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 09:50 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-19 18:02 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 10:25 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-19 20:10 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 18:11 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 10:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 18:58 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 11:35 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 12:31 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-18 20:47 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2015-06-19 03:35 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 17:23 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 09:46 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2015-06-17 10:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 10:43 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-18 16:00 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 08:52 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-19 10:21 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-19 11:35 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 05:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 13:45 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 06:23 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 15:55 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 08:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 16:14 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 08:41 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 17:19 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-19 21:02 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 18:57 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 00:59 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-20 17:25 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-06-21 12:04 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 13:07 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-06-23 13:08 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 17:36 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 01:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 08:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-20 08:54 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 02:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-20 10:46 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 03:16 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-20 09:01 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-20 15:44 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-20 12:08 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-21 21:02 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-21 21:24 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-21 22:41 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 00:08 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 05:43 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-06-22 08:14 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 07:13 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 16:28 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 08:47 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 17:25 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-22 18:23 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 19:11 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 10:50 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 19:23 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-22 14:38 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 10:35 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 11:31 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 12:36 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 12:47 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 21:02 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-06-23 13:04 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 06:13 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-23 15:26 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 07:31 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 07:39 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 14:38 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-24 09:19 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 13:14 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-22 20:29 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-06-23 12:31 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 12:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration crisdunbar@gmail.com - 2015-06-23 12:48 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 13:04 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 21:08 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-19 14:05 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 06:26 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 08:47 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-19 17:19 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-20 08:59 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 02:10 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-20 17:34 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 08:42 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 08:50 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-20 16:59 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-20 18:40 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-20 12:21 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-20 21:31 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-20 14:07 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 05:20 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-22 13:38 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 05:45 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 08:49 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 08:54 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-22 16:54 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 09:02 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-22 21:33 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 10:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-19 22:33 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 07:50 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 08:12 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-06-20 15:30 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 08:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2015-06-19 10:10 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 12:58 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-19 21:30 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 13:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 14:56 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 13:45 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 16:26 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-20 12:26 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 00:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-20 20:05 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 01:17 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 17:52 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-20 01:12 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-19 22:35 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 00:55 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-20 10:27 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 02:31 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-20 15:45 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-22 15:13 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-20 11:56 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 05:36 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-22 17:12 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 09:25 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 17:54 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 10:58 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 19:39 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-22 13:59 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 10:37 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 11:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 09:02 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 09:44 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 19:42 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 11:47 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-12 21:21 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 13:32 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-13 09:03 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 03:13 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 21:53 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 14:05 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 14:30 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-13 00:52 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-12 20:57 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 22:52 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 16:56 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-13 13:22 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-13 10:05 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 19:04 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-13 20:28 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-13 09:45 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 03:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-13 11:01 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 03:19 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-13 19:56 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-13 08:27 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 10:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-13 18:38 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-13 12:20 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-07-14 11:15 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 08:57 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 23:25 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-15 12:59 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-20 17:32 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 07:22 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-13 11:58 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 10:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 05:24 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-13 19:49 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 08:08 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 08:32 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 09:12 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 20:21 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 09:15 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 12:14 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 12:17 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 20:54 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 13:16 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 13:59 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 22:36 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 14:38 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 06:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 14:37 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 16:40 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 16:14 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 22:51 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 22:06 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-24 00:14 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 01:17 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-24 05:18 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 09:35 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-24 10:43 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 11:19 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-14 07:20 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-14 17:55 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 20:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-15 23:28 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 22:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 09:42 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 09:16 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 09:27 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 07:38 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 07:55 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-25 21:22 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-28 10:41 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 03:52 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 22:57 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 07:52 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-24 17:09 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 08:43 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 08:47 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-24 23:01 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 17:13 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-24 23:40 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-06-24 21:38 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-25 11:23 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 11:36 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-25 11:55 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 00:46 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-06-25 01:47 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 05:53 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 20:24 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 10:00 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 05:51 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 14:15 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 07:54 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 08:08 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 16:21 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 17:46 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-25 18:16 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 19:55 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 11:02 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-25 18:30 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-25 12:54 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-26 11:01 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-25 18:03 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 18:27 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-25 10:30 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 10:35 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 19:07 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-26 09:43 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-26 11:26 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-26 09:45 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 14:51 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-26 09:57 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 15:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 17:24 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 08:30 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 16:35 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 20:05 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 11:09 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 11:19 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-25 20:04 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-26 11:42 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 05:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-26 14:11 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 05:26 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-27 22:01 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-27 20:46 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-27 16:37 -0500
[OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-26 14:25 +0200
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 05:31 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-26 14:18 +0100
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 06:31 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 08:20 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 08:24 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 10:24 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 10:30 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 13:40 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-26 14:09 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 14:23 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-26 22:12 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 03:03 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-27 13:08 +0100
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-06-27 11:37 +0000
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-06-27 13:06 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 07:51 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 07:55 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-26 08:59 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-27 12:13 +0000
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-06-27 08:25 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 08:43 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-06-27 08:55 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 09:10 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-27 11:25 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-26 08:56 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-27 22:05 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-25 12:46 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 10:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-28 10:58 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 04:03 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-28 12:43 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 06:05 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 06:33 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-28 18:28 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 10:42 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-28 18:17 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 10:32 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-28 20:53 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 17:53 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-29 12:10 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 04:59 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-29 14:21 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 06:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-29 17:38 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 10:44 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-29 22:10 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 15:09 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-28 11:43 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-28 10:43 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-29 08:50 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-27 12:32 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-23 13:17 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-23 13:20 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 10:25 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-24 09:51 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 12:05 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 10:43 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-27 12:18 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 05:26 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-27 14:11 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 06:38 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-06-27 13:55 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 07:15 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 07:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-27 15:56 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 08:13 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-27 21:35 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-27 18:58 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 12:35 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-27 13:21 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 11:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-27 12:07 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-28 11:02 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 06:12 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-03 17:25 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-24 11:51 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 15:17 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 12:31 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-06-23 21:11 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 20:22 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 12:39 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-23 01:51 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 19:55 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-06-22 22:51 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 02:57 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 11:08 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-23 00:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 09:40 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 11:03 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 06:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 14:45 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 11:33 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-23 15:15 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 15:23 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 07:23 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 15:50 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 16:51 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 10:53 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 19:26 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-06-23 13:37 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-23 07:53 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 17:04 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 16:24 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-23 08:44 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 09:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-23 15:22 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 07:56 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 08:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-24 08:26 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 23:06 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 22:20 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-22 21:18 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 14:21 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-20 10:30 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-20 09:08 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 02:14 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-20 09:08 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 10:52 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Dr Nick <nospam-4@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2015-06-17 19:52 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-17 15:32 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-17 19:58 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-15 20:02 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-15 17:40 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 17:57 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-15 18:37 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 18:44 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-15 19:39 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 19:45 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-15 20:31 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-15 13:29 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 19:09 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-06-15 18:10 -0600
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-16 00:30 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-15 17:41 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-06-15 20:58 -0600
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-16 09:43 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-16 12:27 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-06-16 09:20 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-16 19:18 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-15 10:13 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 18:24 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-18 21:47 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 06:24 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Lőrinczy Zsigmond <nospam@for.me> - 2015-06-15 21:20 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 18:08 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 09:18 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-06-26 18:46 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 10:28 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 05:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-13 21:40 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 09:27 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-14 20:11 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 12:20 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 12:50 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-07-14 16:56 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 17:16 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-15 01:28 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 04:38 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-15 08:54 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 08:57 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-07-14 17:03 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 05:10 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-07-14 22:59 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 13:14 -0700
Page 8 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 23 Next page →
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-22 17:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <877fqviuwo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #63801 |
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 2:56:14 PM UTC-4, Keith Thompson wrote: <snip> >> Without a single concrete example where it matters, your argument >> is meaningless, and certainly not worth imposing restrictions >> on C implementations for a convenience that you don't even take >> advantage of. > > I disagree. Nothing you say here explains why you disagree with the specific point. It is a sound point that without even a single example of what you mean it would be absurd to change the language. To some extent this is because I think people a being rather polite. The form "please give an example" sometimes means "I don't think you know what you are talking about and if you were specific enough about it, I could probably show you that you are wrong". I don't want to suggest that this is what KT means, but it is certainly what I meant. The fact that you state that you can't give an example (despite it being an almost daily hassle) settles the matter as far as I am concerned. > C is full of nebulous concepts which are designed for the > machine's speed, but not for the programmer's need. That's one of C's main selling points. It's not used because of it's great expressive power. C will never become Java light. > An integer is not a finite quantity, Yes it is -- both mathematically and in C. > except as applied to a specific machine, and even > then I'd wager the compiler has the ability to swap it out with another > type if it deems the optimization acceptable. I think you might be talking about "the int type" (which is also finite) rather than "an integer" but that's just a guess. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-22 09:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8ef26dcf-9111-4867-87cf-4652703bd223@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #63827 |
On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 12:13:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > > On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 2:56:14 PM UTC-4, Keith Thompson wrote: > <snip> > >> Without a single concrete example where it matters, your argument > >> is meaningless, and certainly not worth imposing restrictions > >> on C implementations for a convenience that you don't even take > >> advantage of. > > > > I disagree. > > Nothing you say here explains why you disagree with the specific point. > It is a sound point that without even a single example of what you mean > it would be absurd to change the language. I think there are valid points I'm making, but perhaps not in this one area. And I get the impression from your posts you're simply being overly critical of me because you don't like me (or rather because you don't like the God I serve). > To some extent this is because I think people a being rather polite. > The form "please give an example" sometimes means "I don't think you > know what you are talking about and if you were specific enough about > it, I could probably show you that you are wrong". I don't want to > suggest that this is what KT means, but it is certainly what I meant. I understood the same from them, and you. And there's something to be said for politeness as well, Ben. > The fact that you state that you can't give an example (despite it > being an almost daily hassle) settles the matter as far as I am > concerned. I can't give an example of the pointer size issue. I didn't even know it existed until this thread. But I have given examples in other areas. > > C is full of nebulous concepts which are designed for the > > machine's speed, but not for the programmer's need. > > That's one of C's main selling points. It's not used because of > it's great expressive power. C will never become Java light. Of course it is. People program in C because it's the fastest language with limited bloat. And modern compilers are very good at working C's quirks into hardware's mechanics. > > An integer is not a finite quantity, > Yes it is -- both mathematically and in C. As I understand it in C, there is a guarantee of a minimum quantity for an int, but not a maximum quantity. That must be tested against a constant for that instance of the compiler, and switching to another compiler or architecture may not yield the same maximum size. The upper limits are obviously finite mechanically, and ultimately finite at some point logically in C, but you can't know that without knowing something that in C you don't know until runtime, or by examining the include file. If the variable types were s32, and u32, you would know they are signed and unsigned 32-bit quantities, and you would know their limits. > > except as applied to a specific machine, and even > > then I'd wager the compiler has the ability to swap it out with another > > type if it deems the optimization acceptable. > > I think you might be talking about "the int type" (which is also finite) > rather than "an integer" but that's just a guess. I'm referring to the "int" type in C. If it was used more often as being cast to a float, then it might be translated to a float by the compiler, which then casts it as an int only when needed as an int, for example. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-22 17:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mm9eh0$pea$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #63832 |
On 22/06/15 17:25, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 12:13:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: >> > On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 2:56:14 PM UTC-4, Keith Thompson wrote: >> <snip> >> >> Without a single concrete example where it matters, your argument >> >> is meaningless, and certainly not worth imposing restrictions >> >> on C implementations for a convenience that you don't even take >> >> advantage of. >> > >> > I disagree. >> >> Nothing you say here explains why you disagree with the specific point. >> It is a sound point that without even a single example of what you mean >> it would be absurd to change the language. > > I think there are valid points I'm making, but perhaps not in this > one area. If you are making valid points, you will be able to defend them in peer review. That's partly how you know they're valid - because they can withstand attacks. > And I get the impression from your posts you're simply > being overly critical of me because you don't like me (or rather > because you don't like the God I serve). I don't get that impression of Ben at all. I get the impression from his posts that he is a reasonable guy who knows an *awful* lot about programming in general and C in particular, and who is prepared to spend some of his spare (unpaid) time sharing that knowledge with you (and with me). I doubt very much whether the fact that you are a Christian has any bearing whatsoever on Ben's attitude to you. Why do I doubt it? Because it doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on his attitude to /me/. So if it were true that Ben were overly critical of you because you're a Christian, he'd be overly critical of me, too. But he isn't. He criticises what I write from time to time, and mostly he's right and, although I can't quite recall an occasion right now, it may well be that occasionally he's wrong. If he /is/ wrong to criticise, it is possible to defend against that criticism on technical grounds. You don't have to resort to assuming an ad hominem attack where none exists. >> To some extent this is because I think people a being rather polite. >> The form "please give an example" sometimes means "I don't think you >> know what you are talking about and if you were specific enough about >> it, I could probably show you that you are wrong". I don't want to >> suggest that this is what KT means, but it is certainly what I meant. > > I understood the same from them, and you. And there's something to be > said for politeness as well, Ben. Which is why he's being polite. >> The fact that you state that you can't give an example (despite it >> being an almost daily hassle) settles the matter as far as I am >> concerned. > > I can't give an example of the pointer size issue. I didn't even > know it existed until this thread. I /still/ don't know it exists. *WHAT* pointer issue? What issue do you imagine exists with pointer sizes? <snip> >> > An integer is not a finite quantity, >> Yes it is -- both mathematically and in C. > > As I understand it in C, there is a guarantee of a minimum quantity > for an int, but not a maximum quantity. int must be able to represent all values in the range -32767 to +32767. That the language does not impose a maximum limit on the range does not mean that ints are infinite in range. > That must be tested against > a constant for that instance of the compiler, and switching to > another compiler or architecture may not yield the same maximum size. Right, but there's a vast difference between "rather wider on Machine A than on Machine B" and "infinite". In fact, the difference is infinite. > The upper limits are obviously finite mechanically, Right. > and ultimately > finite at some point logically in C, but you can't know that without > knowing something that in C you don't know until runtime, or by > examining the include file. You may not know the exact size until you check INT_MAX and INT_MIN, but you can and do certainly know that that size is not infinite. "Infinite" means "boundless" (that is, devoid of at least one relevant bound), but ints are clearly bounded by INT_MIN and INT_MAX. You know there's an edge, even if you don't happen to know (without peeking) precisely where that edge is. > If the variable types were s32, and u32, you would know they are > signed and unsigned 32-bit quantities, and you would know their > limits. Here's a parable for you (2 Limits 8:17-29) 17 A man went to the shop to buy some sweets. 18 He asked the shopkeeper for a bag of chocolate limes, so the shopkeeper fetched down the jar of chocolate limes, 19 took a paper bag off the counter, poured the sweets into it from the jar, and handed the bag to his customer. 20 The man paid for the sweets, and headed for the door. 21 A friend of his happened to be passing, and the man offered a chocolate lime to his friend. 22 This friend was so delighted by this forgotten pleasure that he entered the shop to buy some for himself. 23 He went to the counter and asked the shopkeeper for a pound of chocolate limes. 24 The shopkeeper measured out a pound of the sweets on his scales, poured them into a bag, and took the money. 25 The friend then returned outside, where the first man was waiting. 26 "These should last me a while. I bought a whole pound", said the friend. 27 The first man smiled, and said, "Ah, I was wiser than you. 28 I don't know how many sweets I bought. 29 Therefore, they will last me forever." Ignorance of a specific limiting value does not imply that there is /no/ limiting value. -- 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 | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-22 10:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <995bb2f7-b749-4a85-9922-41368a14f8ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #63833 |
On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 12:54:21 PM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 22/06/15 17:25, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > I think there are valid points I'm making, but perhaps not in this > > one area. > > If you are making valid points, you will be able to defend them in peer > review. That's partly how you know they're valid - because they can > withstand attacks. I agree. In some cases there are people who place greater emphasis on certain parts, and as a result there is disagreement. I place greater emphasis on C being a core C which has finite values on things, and then there are extensions going out to all areas beyond that. > > And I get the impression from your posts you're simply > > being overly critical of me because you don't like me (or rather > > because you don't like the God I serve). > > I don't get that impression of Ben at all. [snip] I know you don't. You and Ben are similar kinds of people. > > I understood the same from them, and you. And there's something to be > > said for politeness as well, Ben. > > Which is why he's being polite. He's being condescendingly polite, but the purpose of his comments are not polite. They are argumentative and disrespectful. I know you disagree on this point. We'll just have to agree to disagree. > > I can't give an example of the pointer size issue. I didn't even > > know it existed until this thread. > > I /still/ don't know it exists. *WHAT* pointer issue? What issue do you > imagine exists with pointer sizes? It was posted earlier in this thread, or possibly in another. Something about pointers possibly being different sizes, and that casting from one to the other was not allowed. > >> > An integer is not a finite quantity, > >> Yes it is -- both mathematically and in C. To be clear, my use of the word "finite" here meant that in the C language definition, it was defined to be in this range only. As it is with C it is variable per compiler version, though guaranteed to be at least a particular minimum size, but you don't know how big it can be by definition without referring to constants. I also believe that my point was obvious because the fact that numbers in programming languages are finite is also obvious. > Right, but there's a vast difference between "rather wider on Machine A > than on Machine B" and "infinite". In fact, the difference is infinite. I never said it was infinite. I said it was not finite. > Ignorance of a specific limiting value does not imply that there is /no/ > limiting value. I was referring to the constants in my reply. They are the sources you'd have to identify to know the true upper limits. And there is no guarantee in C that you would have the same values in another version of the compiler, another compiler, another architecture, etc. Only the minimums are provided for. As such, it is not finite. It is variable. This will be my last reply to you, Richard. Good day. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-22 19:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mm9kmu$jdh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #63842 |
On 22/06/15 18:58, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 12:54:21 PM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 22/06/15 17:25, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> > I think there are valid points I'm making, but perhaps not in this
>> > one area.
>>
>> If you are making valid points, you will be able to defend them in peer
>> review. That's partly how you know they're valid - because they can
>> withstand attacks.
>
> I agree. In some cases there are people who place greater emphasis
> on certain parts, and as a result there is disagreement.
Technical disagreements can be resolved with reference to the Standard.
Other disagreements are often a matter of taste, about which dispute -
while diverting - has long been acknowledged to be fruitless.
> I place greater emphasis on C being a core C which has finite
> values on things, and then there are extensions going out to
> all areas beyond that.
I would call the "core C" of which you speak the common subset of C90
and subsequent revisions of the Standard. Some would exclude C90 from
that, mostly so that they can get their greedy paws on long long.
>> > And I get the impression from your posts you're simply
>> > being overly critical of me because you don't like me (or rather
>> > because you don't like the God I serve).
>>
>> I don't get that impression of Ben at all. [snip]
>
> I know you don't. You and Ben are similar kinds of people.
I wouldn't have said that, but it's interesting that you did. Thank you
for the compliment.
>> > I understood the same from them, and you. And there's something to be
>> > said for politeness as well, Ben.
>>
>> Which is why he's being polite.
>
> He's being condescendingly polite, but the purpose of his comments
> are not polite. They are argumentative and disrespectful.
Would you rather he told you to go explete yourself? If you want Ben's
respect, you'll have to earn it. If you don't want his respect, why do
you care? As for "argumentative", well, *of course*! This is a
discussion newsgroup, not a Cabinet meeting.
> I know you disagree on this point. We'll just have to agree to
> disagree.
I agree that I disagree, but I'm not sure that I agree that we have to
agree to disagree. Would you settle for disagreeing about agreeing?
>> > I can't give an example of the pointer size issue. I didn't even
>> > know it existed until this thread.
>>
>> I /still/ don't know it exists. *WHAT* pointer issue? What issue do you
>> imagine exists with pointer sizes?
>
> It was posted earlier in this thread, or possibly in another. Something
> about pointers possibly being different sizes, and that casting from
> one to the other was not allowed.
I recall the discussion. It basically consisted of:
"Eek! There's a problem with pointers of different sizes!"
"No there isn't."
It is true that, while C guarantees, for complete object types, that:
T obj;
T *p = &obj;
void *v = p;
T *q = v;
printf("%s.\n", p == q ? "true" : "false");
will print true, but that the opposite conversion (void * to T * and
then back to void *) is not guaranteed, but nobody has yet managed to
explain with any degree of conviction and persuasiveness that this
constitutes an actual problem in the real world.
>> >> > An integer is not a finite quantity,
>> >> Yes it is -- both mathematically and in C.
>
> To be clear, my use of the word "finite" here meant that in the C
> language definition, it was defined to be in this range only. As
> it is with C it is variable per compiler version, though guaranteed
> to be at least a particular minimum size, but you don't know how
> big it can be by definition without referring to constants.
>
> I also believe that my point was obvious because the fact that numbers
> in programming languages are finite is also obvious.
>
>> Right, but there's a vast difference between "rather wider on Machine A
>> than on Machine B" and "infinite". In fact, the difference is infinite.
>
> I never said it was infinite. I said it was not finite.
Let's throw this open to the floor. Does *anyone* other than Rick see a
difference in semantics between "infinite" and "not finite"? Answers
from mathematicians particularly welcome.
>> Ignorance of a specific limiting value does not imply that there is /no/
>> limiting value.
>
> I was referring to the constants in my reply. They are the sources
> you'd have to identify to know the true upper limits. And there is
> no guarantee in C that you would have the same values in another
> version of the compiler, another compiler, another architecture, etc.
> Only the minimums are provided for. As such, it is not finite. It is
> variable.
>
> This will be my last reply to you, Richard. Good day.
What, *another* last reply to me? :-)
Seriously, that's entirely up to you. This probably won't be my last
reply to one of your articles, though.
--
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 | Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-22 13:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mm9ls9$oau$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #63847 |
On 6/22/2015 1:39 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 22/06/15 18:58, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >> On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 12:54:21 PM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 22/06/15 17:25, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >>> Right, but there's a vast difference between "rather wider on Machine A >>> than on Machine B" and "infinite". In fact, the difference is infinite. >> I never said it was infinite. I said it was not finite. > Let's throw this open to the floor. Does *anyone* other than Rick see a > difference in semantics between "infinite" and "not finite"? Answers > from mathematicians particularly welcome. Not exactly a mathematician, but I have studied the matter some. In every case I can come up with, infinite is defined as not finite or finite is defined as not infinite. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-23 10:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mmb5q3$59e$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #63849 |
On 22/06/15 20:59, Martin Shobe wrote: > On 6/22/2015 1:39 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 22/06/15 18:58, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >>> On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 12:54:21 PM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 22/06/15 17:25, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >>>> Right, but there's a vast difference between "rather wider on Machine A >>>> than on Machine B" and "infinite". In fact, the difference is infinite. > >>> I never said it was infinite. I said it was not finite. > >> Let's throw this open to the floor. Does *anyone* other than Rick see a >> difference in semantics between "infinite" and "not finite"? Answers >> from mathematicians particularly welcome. > > Not exactly a mathematician, but I have studied the matter some. In > every case I can come up with, infinite is defined as not finite or > finite is defined as not infinite. > <AOL> Me too! </AOL>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-11 11:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnoajiwp3e.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #63847 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > Let's throw this open to the floor. Does *anyone* other than Rick > see a difference in semantics between "infinite" and "not finite"? > Answers from mathematicians particularly welcome. Mathematical types often do distinguish between 'infinite' and 'unbounded'. For example, a tape on a Turing machine is not infinite, but it is unbounded. From a technical viewpoint the size of a C integer type (other than a character type) is not infinite, but it is unbounded, at least as far as the Standard is concerned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-12 09:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fab9e20c-c809-4ae2-8d38-4b7894082b2d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #65321 |
On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 11:01:34 AM UTC-7, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > > > Let's throw this open to the floor. Does *anyone* other than Rick > > see a difference in semantics between "infinite" and "not finite"? > > Answers from mathematicians particularly welcome. > > Mathematical types often do distinguish between 'infinite' and > 'unbounded'. For example, a tape on a Turing machine is not > infinite, but it is unbounded. From a technical viewpoint > the size of a C integer type (other than a character type) > is not infinite, but it is unbounded, at least as far as the > Standard is concerned. I think I qualify as a mathematician - I have a doctorate and a couple of publications - even if I have drifted away these days. A set is said to have an infinite number of members if it can be mapped one-to-one with a proper subset of itself. A set that does not have an infinite number of memeber is said to be "finite". I think a mathematician would be happy to call anything that is not finite "infinite" and I believe they would not make any distinction between unbounded and infinite. In a Turing machine the tape is zero outside of a bounded region but it must be conceptually infinite.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-12 09:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a81ca40e-4a11-47ca-be22-a63ad73bbdb3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #65414 |
I'm not a mathematician, and here's what I
meant:
(1) On machine A, int is 16 bits.
(2) On machine B, int is 32 bits.
(3) On machine C, int is 36 bits.
(4) Et cetera
It's not a finite quantity across machines, but
only on each machine individually, and in the
encapsulated existence of itself, and its related
brothers and sisters (machines with the same
sizes for int, et al).
If there's a better term there than not finite, I'm
content to use it. And might I add: it's not worth
blowing a gasket over. :-) It was just a statement.
Let's try to work together and not rigidly attack
others when terminology may not be correct,
but let's instead try to be understanding and
accommodating of each other.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-12 19:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87615pqktb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #65419 |
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > I'm not a mathematician, and here's what I > meant: > > (1) On machine A, int is 16 bits. > (2) On machine B, int is 32 bits. > (3) On machine C, int is 36 bits. > (4) Et cetera > > It's not a finite quantity across machines, The problem (as so often is the case) is the "it". It (the size of an int) is finite. It (the size of a C int) is always finite, both in practice and in theory. It (the set of possible sizes for an int) is not finite. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-12 11:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ce48c8dd-4875-47c4-8dd1-ae0fb9f17693@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #65438 |
On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 2:42:49 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > > > I'm not a mathematician, and here's what I > > meant: > > > > (1) On machine A, int is 16 bits. > > (2) On machine B, int is 32 bits. > > (3) On machine C, int is 36 bits. > > (4) Et cetera > > > > It's not a finite quantity across machines, > > The problem (as so often is the case) is the "it". It (the size of an > int) is finite. It (the size of a C int) is always finite, both in > practice and in theory. It (the set of possible sizes for an int) is > not finite. It's not finite. It's only finite on a single machine, or in a class of machine (where the int is the same size in bytes as on other machines of the same class). If I write a file to disk using int on machine A, and then go to read it in on machine B, it is not a guarantee that the int being read will be the same size, or same endian. It requires additional knowledge beyond mere use of the int value written to disk. It is a glaring shortcoming in C in my assessment. There should've been from the beginning a fixed size that could be used, with something like int being used for speed, whereas the i32/s32 signed 32-bit ingeger, and u32 unsigned form, would be available as well. Just my opinion. But, it does lend itself to this error across machines even here in 2015 when using only int. It's why I think we need to settle on a default endian size in C, and introduce the fundamental types which are not int8_t and others, but the simpler i8/s8 and u8, and so on. Those forms would always be little-endian (or big-endian), and would always be those sizes in memory and in computation, regardless of how they're physically wielded using the CPU resources. Again, only my opinion. But in all honest, it makes so much sense that I honestly can't even understand why others would want it another way. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-12 21:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u3f5qa1153gb35493qji897g1s70luk2bg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #65439 |
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:47:42 -0700 (PDT), "Rick C. Hodgin" wrote: >On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 2:42:49 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > I'm not a mathematician, and here's what I >> > meant: >> > >> > (1) On machine A, int is 16 bits. >> > (2) On machine B, int is 32 bits. >> > (3) On machine C, int is 36 bits. >> > (4) Et cetera >> > >> > It's not a finite quantity across machines, >> >> The problem (as so often is the case) is the "it". It (the size of an >> int) is finite. It (the size of a C int) is always finite, both in >> practice and in theory. It (the set of possible sizes for an int) is >> not finite. > >It's not finite. It's only finite on a single machine, or in a class >of machine (where the int is the same size in bytes as on other machines >of the same class). > >If I write a file to disk using int on machine A, and then go to read it >in on machine B, it is not a guarantee that the int being read will be >the same size, or same endian. It requires additional knowledge beyond >mere use of the int value written to disk. > >It is a glaring shortcoming in C in my assessment. There should've been >from the beginning a fixed size that could be used, with something like >int being used for speed, whereas the i32/s32 signed 32-bit ingeger, and >u32 unsigned form, would be available as well. > >Just my opinion. But, it does lend itself to this error across machines >even here in 2015 when using only int. It's why I think we need to >settle on a default endian size in C, if i think one little endian cpu that execute instruction as big endian cpu... this mean *each* instruction there would be 2 trasformations big endian (1)-> little endian -> execute instruction (2)-> big endian not seems to me the right way >and introduce the fundamental >types which are not int8_t and others, but the simpler i8/s8 and u8, >and so on. Those forms would always be little-endian (or big-endian), >and would always be those sizes in memory and in computation, regardless >of how they're physically wielded using the CPU resources. > >Again, only my opinion. But in all honest, it makes so much sense that >I honestly can't even understand why others would want it another way. > >Best regards, >Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-12 13:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3be14243-0f6c-4b25-816c-f2df4dedf129@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #65443 |
Rosario19 wrote: > if i think one little endian cpu that execute > instruction as big endian cpu... > > this mean *each* instruction there would be 2 > trasformations big endian > (1)-> little endian -> execute instruction > (2)-> big endian > > not seems to me the right way It would not have to be that way except for the variable types that are defined to be little endian. And for them it would only need to be that way for loads and stores. Once in the CPU's registers, the compiler is free to compute however it wants. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-13 09:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <48o6qa9pliktagdj6icp904i1o31qnhl5k@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #65450 |
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 13:32:54 -0700 (PDT), "Rick C. Hodgin" wrote: >Rosario19 wrote: >> if i think one little endian cpu that execute >> instruction as big endian cpu... >> >> this mean *each* instruction there would be 2 >> trasformations big endian >> (1)-> little endian -> execute instruction >> (2)-> big endian >> >> not seems to me the right way > >It would not have to be that way except for the >variable types that are defined to be little endian. >And for them it would only need to be that way >for loads and stores. for loads and stores in memory but % of code read-store in memory is not little >Once in the CPU's registers, >the compiler is free to compute however it wants. so compiler can use cpu endian but the data store in memory has to have 'endian' one choose... i know i don't know etc; at 90% possible it is wrong what i say >Best regards, >Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-13 03:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4ea370a2-f983-4374-83c2-254912553503@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #65469 |
Rosario19 wrote:
> so compiler can use cpu endian but the data
> store in memory has to have 'endian' one
> choose...
For (1) those types I propose which use a new
type which is an explicitly-endianed type, or (2)
for those types which convey endian type overrides.
In the spirit of C:
int32_t_big_endian_override_storage ibe:
int32_t_little_endian_override_storage ile;
Or simply define new types to be little endian always:
s32 ile; // use defined little endian type
int i; // use natural machine endianness
And provide "volatile"-like overrides to explicitly
convey info on each variable:
big int ibe;
little int ile;
(This idea I believe came from Keith Thompson,
I believe... explicitly naming the endianness.)
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-12 21:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87vbdpp066.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #65439 |
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 2:42:49 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > I'm not a mathematician, and here's what I >> > meant: >> > >> > (1) On machine A, int is 16 bits. >> > (2) On machine B, int is 32 bits. >> > (3) On machine C, int is 36 bits. >> > (4) Et cetera >> > >> > It's not a finite quantity across machines, >> >> The problem (as so often is the case) is the "it". It (the size of an >> int) is finite. It (the size of a C int) is always finite, both in >> practice and in theory. It (the set of possible sizes for an int) is >> not finite. > > It's not finite. It's only finite on a single machine, or in a class > of machine (where the int is the same size in bytes as on other machines > of the same class). Please re-write those sentences without using "it" (or some equivalent) and we will probably agree. The first sentence is wrong, as it stands, but since you deliberately decided to abuse the very word that I said was the problem, I can only assume that you just want to keep going round in a pantomime loop of "oh yes it is", "oh no it isn't". I don't really want to do that. <snip> > Again, only my opinion. But in all honest, it makes so much sense that > I honestly can't even understand why others would want it another way. Ah, that's one of the great things about Usenet (and global communication in general). I would never have believed that there really are people who want things the way you want them, had it not been for such communication. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-12 14:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <396edab4-5f49-464c-9434-933de09d3499@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #65451 |
Int it is not finite. It has a minimum value that is known, but no upper value that is known (apart from examination of min/max constants, and those can vary between compiler versions, or machines, etc.). But if I'm writing portable C code, I cannot use int beyond its mins/maxs. It is only finite within the confines and encapsulation of the machine, or within the general guidance that there just aren't generally machines larger than 64 bits. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-12 14:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <582c9e71-ff18-49d7-8b7f-520e82638f1c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #65452 |
On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 5:05:32 PM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > ...But if I'm writing portable C > code, I cannot use int beyond its mins/maxs. The mins/maxs I'm referring to here are the +/- approx. 32768, not the ones found in the limits.h file, because on one machine the INT_MIN and INT_MAX might be +/- approx. 32768. On another it might include many more bits, and much larger min/max values. If I'm going to limit myself to the C defined maximum, then there is still an issue involved because when I go to save a value that will fit in 16 bits, it may not be saved as 16 bits on disk, but because int on this particular machine is mechanically represented by 36 bits, now I'm writing 20 extra bits per value, which when I read it in on the next computer, will fail unless it happens to also use the 36 bit format. Do you see what I'm talking about, Ben? I may not be saying it in the proper words as per your usage, or even the industry standard usage, but surely you can compensate for my shortcomings in this area and understand the point I'm trying to make? Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-13 00:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87wpy5ndbe.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #65456 |
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 5:05:32 PM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >> ...But if I'm writing portable C >> code, I cannot use int beyond its mins/maxs. > > The mins/maxs I'm referring to here are the +/- approx. 32768, not the > ones found in the limits.h file, because on one machine the INT_MIN > and INT_MAX might be +/- approx. 32768. On another it might include > many more bits, and much larger min/max values. > > If I'm going to limit myself to the C defined maximum, then there is > still an issue involved because when I go to save a value that will > fit in 16 bits, it may not be saved as 16 bits on disk, but because > int on this particular machine is mechanically represented by 36 bits, > now I'm writing 20 extra bits per value, which when I read it in on > the next computer, will fail unless it happens to also use the 36 bit > format. > > Do you see what I'm talking about, Ben? I may not be saying it in > the proper words as per your usage, or even the industry standard > usage, but surely you can compensate for my shortcomings in this area > and understand the point I'm trying to make? I am pretty sure I know what you are saying and I don't think we disagree about a single underlying fact. I disagree about only two things: what you actually say and why you are saying it. The what is easy -- it's just the words coming out wrong. Why you are saying it much more problematic. What is it about the lack of an upper bound on the size of int that bothers you? If the standard said that no implementation would have an int bigger than a thousand gazillion bits, how would your coding change? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web