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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #7258 > unrolled thread

Typography of programs

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

Contents

  Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 02:06 +0200
    Re: Typography of programs Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 19:57 -0500
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 07:19 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 01:08 -0500
          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 08:16 +0200
            Re: Typography of programs Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 01:56 -0500
              Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 09:06 +0200
                Re: Typography of programs Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 02:25 -0500
                  Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 10:21 +0200
    Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 21:43 -0700
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 07:21 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 22:49 -0700
    Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-30 16:59 +1200
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 07:23 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-30 17:25 +1200
          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 22:52 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-30 17:53 +1200
              Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 22:58 -0700
                Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-30 21:11 +1200
                  Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 11:17 +0200
                    Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-30 12:19 +0000
                      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 17:30 +0200
                        Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-30 15:40 +0000
                          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 12:02 -0700
                        Re: Typography of programs Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> - 2011-06-30 20:13 +0000
                        Re: Typography of programs "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-07-02 22:21 +0000
                          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-03 01:22 +0200
                      Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 11:43 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-30 08:20 +0000
        Re: Typography of programs Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-30 17:13 +0100
        Re: Typography of programs "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-07-01 08:52 +0000
          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-01 10:58 +0200
            Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-07-01 09:27 +0000
              Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-01 12:04 +0200
                Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-07-01 12:42 +0000
          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-01 02:05 -0700
      Re: Typography of programs "Wolfgang.Draxinger" <Wolfgang.Draxinger@physik.uni-muenchen.de> - 2011-07-01 18:10 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-07-01 09:21 -0700
          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-01 14:36 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Joe Wright <joewwright@comcast.net> - 2011-07-01 19:29 -0400
              Re: Typography of programs Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-07-02 11:22 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-07-01 23:59 +0000
    Re: Typography of programs Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-06-30 07:48 +0000
      Re: Typography of programs "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> - 2011-06-30 10:03 +0200
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 10:32 +0200
      Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 01:34 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-30 11:06 +0100
          Re: Typography of programs Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-30 16:05 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-30 14:52 +0000
          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 11:39 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-30 20:55 +0000
              Re: Typography of programs "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-07-02 22:21 +0000
    Re: Typography of programs Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-06-30 09:11 -0700
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 21:50 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-01 08:26 +1200
          Re: Typography of programs "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-07-02 22:21 +0000
        Re: Typography of programs Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-06-30 13:38 -0700
    Re: Typography of programs gordonb.9z4n8@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-07-01 23:16 -0500
      Re: Typography of programs Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-07-01 21:46 -0700
      Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-01 21:52 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs gordonb.e78ud@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-07-02 02:14 -0500
          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-02 00:38 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-02 15:00 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-04 00:20 +0000
              Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-03 18:28 -0700
                Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-04 04:42 +0000
                  Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 01:01 -0500
                    Re: Typography of programs Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-04 08:15 +0100
                      Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 00:40 -0700
                        Re: Typography of programs gordonb.3nbmk@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-07-04 07:42 -0500
                          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 07:15 -0700
                            Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-05 20:21 +0000
                      Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 09:56 -0500
                        Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-05 20:21 +0000
                    Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-07-04 08:04 +0000
                      Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 09:22 -0500
                    Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-05 20:21 +0000
                      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-05 22:45 +0200
                        Re: Typography of programs Willem <willem@turtle.stack.nl> - 2011-07-05 21:52 +0000
                        Re: Typography of programs Squeamizh <squeamz@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-05 20:03 -0700
                          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 08:46 +0200
                            Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 00:08 -0700
                            Re: Typography of programs Willem <willem@turtle.stack.nl> - 2011-07-06 12:12 +0000
                            Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-06 11:10 -0500
                        Re: Typography of programs Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-06 07:42 +0100
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-02 11:02 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-02 10:22 +0100
          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-02 13:51 +0200
            Re: Typography of programs Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-02 15:45 +0100
        Re: Typography of programs gordonb.piror@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-07-02 07:31 -0500
          Re: Typography of programs Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-07-03 01:47 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-03 03:10 -0700
          Re: Typography of programs superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2011-07-04 15:19 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-07-03 19:39 +0000
          Re: Typography of programs "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-03 14:01 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-03 14:26 -0700
              Re: Typography of programs "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-04 01:19 -0700
                Re: Typography of programs Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-04 14:19 -0700
          Re: Typography of programs Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-07-03 20:46 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-04 04:42 +0000
            Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 00:43 -0500
              Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-03 23:03 -0700
                Re: Typography of programs James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-04 06:32 -0400
                Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 09:08 -0500
            Re: Typography of programs Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-07 18:01 +0300
    Re: Typography of programs Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-02 16:28 +0100
    Re: Typography of programs pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-07-02 20:52 +0000
      Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 00:50 -0500
    Re: Typography of programs "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-03 10:04 +0200
      Re: Typography of programs "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-03 10:27 +0200
    Re: Typography of programs Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-03 03:19 -0700
    Re: Typography of programs "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-07-06 10:14 +0100
      Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 02:48 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-07-06 11:47 +0100
          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 14:46 +0200
            Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 07:44 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 07:50 +1200

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

#7734

Le 06/07/11 05:03, Squeamizh a écrit :
>
> You have yet to explain why this is better than simply using an editor
> which displays the extended characters without modifying the source.
>

But that is exactly what I am proposing. But if we are going to keep
those programs independent of ONE EDITOR, a standard should be set up
so that all editors know what to expect

In a first post I thought that rtf could be that standard, but it
has some drawbacks, and I think now that HTML could be a better
solution


> Also, I would expect this to be a common feature among IDEs if there
> were demand for it.  Are there any IDEs which do this?
>

No, because if they would do that, the program would be tied
to a single IDE forever.  If we had a standard decision THEN
IDEs could do it.

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

#7736

In article <iv10d0$1oe$1@speranza.aioe.org>, jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> 
wrote:

> In a first post I thought that rtf could be that standard, but it
> has some drawbacks, and I think now that HTML could be a better
> solution

XML (XHTML) is easier to parse. There are also filters that can interconvert 
HTML, XML, and RTF. So presentation, editting and compiling can use the most 
convenient format.

-- 
I remember finding out about you,  |A free Thai dyed shirt in every box.
Everyday my mind is all around you,|      I'm whoever you want me to be.
Looking out from my lonely room    | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Day after day.                     |   At least I can stay in character.

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

#7749

jacob navia wrote:
) Le 06/07/11 05:03, Squeamizh a ??crit :
)>
)> You have yet to explain why this is better than simply using an editor
)> which displays the extended characters without modifying the source.
)>
)
) But that is exactly what I am proposing. But if we are going to keep
) those programs independent of ONE EDITOR, a standard should be set up
) so that all editors know what to expect

You misunderstood. What he proposed was to have the source code contain the
old notation, != -> || et cetera, but have the editor display them in
modern glyphs for unequality, arrow, et cetera.

)> Also, I would expect this to be a common feature among IDEs if there
)> were demand for it.  Are there any IDEs which do this?
)
) No, because if they would do that, the program would be tied
) to a single IDE forever.  If we had a standard decision THEN
) IDEs could do it.

No.
The program would be in ascii. The ide would translate for display only.
See above.

SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

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

#7769

On 06-Jul-11 01:46, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 06/07/11 05:03, Squeamizh a écrit :
>> You have yet to explain why this is better than simply using an editor
>> which displays the extended characters without modifying the source.
> 
> But that is exactly what I am proposing.

No, you missed his point; however, the rest is worth responding to.

> But if we are going to keep
> those programs independent of ONE EDITOR, a standard should be set up
> so that all editors know what to expect
> 
> In a first post I thought that rtf could be that standard, but it
> has some drawbacks, and I think now that HTML could be a better
> solution

I see no reason C source would need to be RTF or HTML, which would be a
fundamental and unnecessary change.  Simple UTF-8 encoded text would
work fine, though many compilers and other tools would probably need to
be modified if they can't handle a UTF-8 encoded BOM at the beginning of
the file, which is advisable any time one doesn't stick to pure ASCII.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

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

#7733

jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> writes:

> That will be ALWAYS the case. There are still some terminals that do
> not have the "{" character like the IBM 3270.
>
> Happily for us some people in the eighties decided that we couldn't
> afford to remain compatible with those terminals and introduced ASCII
> terminals.
>
> My proposal is the same. If there is some older hardware/software
> combination that can't display ≠ (Alt"+" in my Mac keyboard)
> they can always translate ≠ to "!="
>
> Or you can run a simple filter and be done with it.
>
> But there will be always some naysayers that will be aginst ANY
> improvements however minimal. This is the problem with this
> group.

Can you tell us why Java didn't do this?  It was designed with Unicode
in mind, and no nasty history and legacy like C, yet it chose not to do
it.  Until we know, I'm going to be sceptical in principle, as I can't
believe that the designers didn't think of it.
-- 
Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk

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

#7432

Le 02/07/11 06:16, Gordon Burditt a écrit :
>> Unicode now offers all possible signs for displaying in our programs,
>
> How many people can visually distinguish those possible signs from
> each other?
>
>> and it would be a progress if C would standardize some codes to be
>> used isnstead of the usual != and&&, etc.
>
> Why?  What problem are you attempting to solve?

At the start of the discussion, I was trying to get a modern
and aesthetically pleasing typography for programs. Why write
!= instead of the inequality sign from mathematics? There is
no reason.

But during the discussion, I have learned a bit, and now the
proposal should be extended:

o We should be able to format commentary text as in a simple
   text editor (rtf) that would allow us to write diagrams that
   explain the code instead of ridiculous Ascii drawings that
   are extremely difficult to draw and do not pass through
   reformatters

o We should end the digraphs of C and use the inequality sign
   (in output) instead of !=, the assignment arrow instead of =,
   the boolen \/ and /\ for OR and AND instead of || and &&,
   etc.

The problem with documentation now, is that it must be written
outside the program, using a text editor that is in general
different from the programmer's editor. Obviously, as Ben said, I
could do thsi in wedit and be done with it, but actually that would be
a wrong solution since any user of this feature would be tied
to a single editor: impossible to use another since there
would be no standard way of editing programs.

> Incidentally,
> Unicode is well-known for the use of nearly-identical graphics
> characters to try to get people and web browsers to interpret URLs
> differently, and to exploit security holes.
>

Did you know that pointers are used in all exploits done so far?
Obviously we should ban pointers (and pointer+integer operations).

> It seems that the *only* standardized way to refer to a character
> is some wierd construct using a U and a bunch of numbers.
>
>> We could have in some isoXXX.h
>> #define ? !=
>> #define ? and
>> #define ? or
>> #define ?<=
>> #define ?>=
>
> 1.  Who said whatever that character is after #define (that looks
> like a question mark) is usable in an identifier?

Nobody said that. The problem with your news reader (tin) is
that is from february 2007 and kind of outdated, as you can
see now. Please get a newer version or a version that can
read/write utf8.


  I don't understand
> why you would want to use it as (part of) an identifier *and* as a
> comparison operator?
>

I never said that. Please read again. I am proposing that != is replaced
with a single Unicode character (the inequality sign of mathematics)


> 2.  How do you manage to #define the same character to five different
> strings?
>

As I said before, your news reader displays only the alternative Unicode
sin (the question mark) since it is unable to display unicode.


> 3.  How the heck do I type that character?
>


By pressing the "!" and then (after you have taken your finger away from 
the "!") the "=" key. The sophisticated software behind your
programmer's editor translates those two characters into one, in the 
same way that when you type an accentuated letter you type first
the accent, THEN the letter. OK?

>> Using ? for assignment would avoid the common beginner's error of using
>> = instead of == and programs would look less horrible.
>
> Using something that looks like a *question mark* for assignment
> would be extremely confusing.

Yes, I agree. But there was no question mark in my post. See above.

  Using something that turns into a
> *question mark* when posted to comp.lang.c would be even more
> confusing.
>

Yes.

>> All this would be done first in output only to avoid requiring a new C
>> keyboard even though that can be done later.
>
> Why should we need a C-specific keyboard?
>

Because many C programmers do not need the "Paragraph" sign for instance.
It could be replaced with the... inequality sign!

>> You would still type !=
>> but you would obtain ? in output in the same way that you type first the
>> accent, then the later under the accent and you obtain one character.
>
> The C language does not define a text editor.
>

It implicitly admits that the program text must be somehow
inputted into a computer system...

Besides, this proposal doesn't define an editor anyway. It would
propose an optional "enriched" form of programs that would replace
the digraphs of C with their Unicode equivalents and that would
reserve the sequences:

/*{\rtf
that should be followed by a matching
}*/

/*<HTML>

and
</HTML>*/
as the start of a rich text comment that should be displayed
as rich text if the text processor supports it.

> You might be right about many editors supporting UTF-8.  How many users
> know how to use those features?

I would bet that there isn't a single programmer that has never used a
word processor. I am sorry but even you have used one.



> And how many of those support UTF-8 on
> a text console?
>

BSD is not very advanced in graphics and Unicode support maybe...
Get a Mac or a PC and use your favorite editor there, using BSD only to 
run your code.

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

#7433

jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> writes:

> Le 02/07/11 06:16, Gordon Burditt a écrit :
>>> Unicode now offers all possible signs for displaying in our programs,
>>
>> How many people can visually distinguish those possible signs from
>> each other?
>>
>>> and it would be a progress if C would standardize some codes to be
>>> used isnstead of the usual != and&&, etc.
>>
>> Why?  What problem are you attempting to solve?
>
> At the start of the discussion, I was trying to get a modern
> and aesthetically pleasing typography for programs. Why write
> != instead of the inequality sign from mathematics? There is
> no reason.
>
> But during the discussion, I have learned a bit, and now the
> proposal should be extended:
>
> o We should be able to format commentary text as in a simple
>   text editor (rtf) that would allow us to write diagrams that
>   explain the code instead of ridiculous Ascii drawings that
>   are extremely difficult to draw and do not pass through
>   reformatters

That sounds almost orthogonal to language specification.  This is going
to break every existing toolset, so unless you want to create the whole
editing environment from the ground up and require people to use it,
it's not going to work.

> o We should end the digraphs of C and use the inequality sign
>   (in output) instead of !=, the assignment arrow instead of =,
>   the boolen \/ and /\ for OR and AND instead of || and &&,
>   etc.
>
> The problem with documentation now, is that it must be written
> outside the program, using a text editor that is in general
> different from the programmer's editor. Obviously, as Ben said, I
> could do thsi in wedit and be done with it, but actually that would be
> a wrong solution since any user of this feature would be tied
> to a single editor: impossible to use another since there
> would be no standard way of editing programs.

But how on earth am I, editing your C in Emacs on my Linux box going to
see the same diagrams that you, editing your C in whatever on your Mac,
have created?

[big snip]

> BSD is not very advanced in graphics and Unicode support maybe...
> Get a Mac or a PC and use your favorite editor there, using BSD only
> to run your code.

My favourite editor is Emacs!  And unlike the Windows (presumably by PC
you mean "Windows machine" (PC meant personal computer many years before
Windows appeared) users I have no difficulty writing ≥ and its friends
when I need to.

Your proposals to use better symbols in your programming language are
perfectly good. But C is the wrong language for it.  Like it or not, C
has to be in many respects "lowest common denominator" language just
because of its history.

Now Java is something that could easily have adopted these symbols.  I
wonder why it didn't - finding out might help think about whether C
should.
-- 
Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk

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

#7439

Le 02/07/11 11:22, Dr Nick a écrit :

> That sounds almost orthogonal to language specification.  This is going
> to break every existing toolset, so unless you want to create the whole
> editing environment from the ground up and require people to use it,
> it's not going to work.
>

I did not know that your editor can't display plain text.

If I write NOW:

/*<html  Some comment in html format </html>*/

your editor goes nuts?

>
> But how on earth am I, editing your C in Emacs on my Linux box going to
> see the same diagrams that you, editing your C in whatever on your Mac,
> have created?
>

It doesn't surprise you that when you write a web page
it looks the same in MANY web browsers? This is the same!

And if you do not want to use this feature you just don't,
since it is in commentaries, it can be safely ignored by older software
and you can stick to your old version of emacs.

There are versions of emacs for X windows, and they will display
html if they are updated to do so.

> [big snip]
>
>> BSD is not very advanced in graphics and Unicode support maybe...
>> Get a Mac or a PC and use your favorite editor there, using BSD only
>> to run your code.
>
> My favourite editor is Emacs!  And unlike the Windows (presumably by PC
> you mean "Windows machine" (PC meant personal computer many years before
> Windows appeared) users I have no difficulty writing ≥ and its friends
> when I need to.

Then what's the problem?

>
> Your proposals to use better symbols in your programming language are
> perfectly good. But C is the wrong language for it.  Like it or not, C
> has to be in many respects "lowest common denominator" language just
> because of its history.
>

My proposals do not change C at all. They add an optional standard way
of writing programs using modern typesetting techniques like:

o bold face
o italics
o embedded graphics
o extended character sets.

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

#7443

jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> writes:

> Le 02/07/11 11:22, Dr Nick a écrit :
>
>> That sounds almost orthogonal to language specification.  This is going
>> to break every existing toolset, so unless you want to create the whole
>> editing environment from the ground up and require people to use it,
>> it's not going to work.
>>
>
> I did not know that your editor can't display plain text.

Can you *please* lay off the "putting words into people's mouths" bit.
I never said that.

> If I write NOW:
>
> /*<html  Some comment in html format </html>*/
>
> your editor goes nuts?

No, but it's not exactly pretty to read when I'm trying to debug the
code.  Admittedly, anyone who can't explain what's happening without
using HTML is probably writing the type of comment that the code is
easier to understand without.

Pretty soon we'll have the type of HTML that word throws out and for
every three words there'll be a mountain of embedded syntax.
>
>> But how on earth am I, editing your C in Emacs on my Linux box going to
>> see the same diagrams that you, editing your C in whatever on your Mac,
>> have created?
>>
>
> It doesn't surprise you that when you write a web page
> it looks the same in MANY web browsers? This is the same!
>
> And if you do not want to use this feature you just don't,
> since it is in commentaries, it can be safely ignored by older software
> and you can stick to your old version of emacs.
>
> There are versions of emacs for X windows, and they will display
> html if they are updated to do so.

They will display HTML as HTML.  I've never seen anything that renders
comments as HTML and C as syntax coloured C.  Have you?

Anyway, yesterday you were talking about rtf.  Today it's HTML.  Which
is it?

>> [big snip]
>>
>>> BSD is not very advanced in graphics and Unicode support maybe...
>>> Get a Mac or a PC and use your favorite editor there, using BSD only
>>> to run your code.
>>
>> My favourite editor is Emacs!  And unlike the Windows (presumably by PC
>> you mean "Windows machine" (PC meant personal computer many years before
>> Windows appeared) users I have no difficulty writing ≥ and its friends
>> when I need to.
>
> Then what's the problem?

The problem is with the embedded graphics.

>>
>> Your proposals to use better symbols in your programming language are
>> perfectly good. But C is the wrong language for it.  Like it or not, C
>> has to be in many respects "lowest common denominator" language just
>> because of its history.
>>
>
> My proposals do not change C at all. They add an optional standard way
> of writing programs using modern typesetting techniques like:
>
> o bold face
> o italics
> o embedded graphics
> o extended character sets.

You seem to be conflating two ideas:

a) some form - type variable - of marking up comments etc.  This is
entirely possible but without a standard and being available everywhere
will make comments less rather than more understandable to most.  But
the code will work everywhere.

b) changing the underlying syntax of C to support an extended character
set.  That's a much bigger can of worms as it /will/ break all existing
toolsets.
-- 
Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk

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

#7441

>>> Unicode now offers all possible signs for displaying in our programs,
>>
>> How many people can visually distinguish those possible signs from
>> each other?
>>
>>> and it would be a progress if C would standardize some codes to be
>>> used isnstead of the usual != and&&, etc.
>>
>> Why?  What problem are you attempting to solve?
> 
> At the start of the discussion, I was trying to get a modern
> and aesthetically pleasing typography for programs. Why write

Do you have proof that the changes are aesthetically pleasing?

You're changing over to using symbols which many people may not
have seen before (not all programmers have even seen the math
notation).  They also don't look enough different from current
symbols to avoid confusion with which is meant.

> != instead of the inequality sign from mathematics? There is
> no reason.

Does the inequality sign look sufficiently different from /=, or
for that matter, plain =,  to avoid confusing people?

There is no reason to introduce 6 characters (probably more:  I
only did a quick scan of the code tables) that look like a slash,
but only one works to start a C comment.  (It will be even worse
if most implementations recognize 4 of the slash-lookalike characters
as a slash, but they each recognize a different four.)  It's going
to be very confusing to anyone who chooses the wrong slash to
interpret the resulting compiler error message.

> But during the discussion, I have learned a bit, and now the
> proposal should be extended:
> 
> o We should be able to format commentary text as in a simple
>   text editor (rtf) that would allow us to write diagrams that

It is *not* a "simple text editor" if it's got:  different fonts,
type sizes, font colors, embedded images, macros, automatic "paragraph"
formatting, spell check, etc.  Let's not get into the argument again
over whether a Courier 7 point yellow C variable named "foo" should
be the same as an Arial 78 point flashing green C variable named
"foo".  C having font-, color-, and size-sensitive variable names
is ridiculous.

>   explain the code instead of ridiculous Ascii drawings that
>   are extremely difficult to draw and do not pass through
>   reformatters

I thought one of the purposes of reformatters was to reformat the
comments.  There are places, outside of diagrams, where this is
desirable.

rtf is a proprietary format.  It is certainly not a simple text
format.  It's probably also vulnerable to macro viruses in what
should be source code.  It's bad enough having buffer overflows and
such in the code after it's compiled.  It also has a rather poor
record with interoperability between different versions of rtf.


> o We should end the digraphs of C and use the inequality sign
>   (in output) instead of !=, the assignment arrow instead of =,
>   the boolen \/ and /\ for OR and AND instead of || and &&,
>   etc.

Are you sure you're going to be able to tell the difference between
boolean \/ and the letter V?  I seem to recall a problem with this
on a boolean logic exam that pretty much ruined using the exam
results by trying to use V as a variable name.  Nobody could parse
the formulas.  This was way before Unicode.  The exam was probably
typed on a typewriter with a special math typeball.  But those
symbols look a lot alike.

> The problem with documentation now, is that it must be written
> outside the program, using a text editor that is in general
> different from the programmer's editor. 

I don't want a "programmer's editor" that's language-specific.  I
want a text editor.  If that editor handles Unicode, fine, but I
don't want to have to re-learn how to type based on what language
it is I'm editing.  That means no cutsie changing input of "!=" and
automatically changing it to something else because what I'm editing
is C, but only if it's not inside a string, etc., etc.  And remember,
I still have to be able to type != and have it mean !=, even if
it's to do
	:%s/!=/<new inequality character goes here>/g
a global substitution to the new format.


> Obviously, as Ben said, I
> could do thsi in wedit and be done with it, but actually that would be
> a wrong solution since any user of this feature would be tied
> to a single editor: impossible to use another since there
> would be no standard way of editing programs.

Already it seems your proposal is *EXTREMELY* limiting:

1.  Use a Mac.
2.  Use a proprietary Microsoft format for the source code.  Does
    Microsoft still even support this format for the Mac?
3.  Use a special C keyboard.  And you'll probably also need hardware
    and software changes to support changing keyboards frequently as
    you switch between coding C and entering your time sheet info.
4.  Use only a compiler that supports putting in a bunch of extra 
    word-processing crap or embedded images into a source file.
    That obsoletes all existing compilers.  (Just allowing UTF-8
    in comments probably wouldn't cause this problem.)
5.  Use only C tools that support putting in a bunch of extra
    word-processing crap or embedded images into a source file.

It almost seems like you've limited your audience to those who edit
code on a Mac and edit the documentation part of the code on a
Windows machine.

And I'm supposed to change all this because you think the symbols
look pretty.


>> Incidentally,
>> Unicode is well-known for the use of nearly-identical graphics
>> characters to try to get people and web browsers to interpret URLs
>> differently, and to exploit security holes.
>>
> Did you know that pointers are used in all exploits done so far?

No, this is not true.  A counterexample is gambling programs which
allow the players to place negative bets, then deliberately lose.
(seems to me this got into production code once).

> Obviously we should ban pointers (and pointer+integer operations).

But we shouldn't take at face value claims that the new symbols
are somehow "better", either, when there is plenty of room for
confusion.


> 
>> It seems that the *only* standardized way to refer to a character
>> is some wierd construct using a U and a bunch of numbers.
>>
>>> We could have in some isoXXX.h
>>> #define ? !=
>>> #define ? and
>>> #define ? or
>>> #define ?<=
>>> #define ?>=
>>
>> 1.  Who said whatever that character is after #define (that looks
>> like a question mark) is usable in an identifier?
> 
> Nobody said that. 

Yes, you said that when you used unidentifiable characters in a
#define preprocessor statement in the place where an identifier
goes.  If those characters are not legal in preprocessor identifiers,
what are they doing in a #define statement where the identifier
belongs?

Incidentally, I dumped in hex the characters from that article.  As
I received it, those are *question marks*, not unicode characters.
And it's not my newsreader doing it, because it wasn't involved in
refetching it.  


> The problem with your news reader (tin) is
> that is from february 2007 and kind of outdated, as you can
> see now. Please get a newer version or a version that can
> read/write utf8.

It doesn't matter if tin is outdated if the unicode gets stripped
out before it reaches me.  I doubt tin can support Unicode on a
text console anyway.  

>  I don't understand
>> why you would want to use it as (part of) an identifier *and* as a
>> comparison operator?
>>
> 
> I never said that. Please read again. I am proposing that != is replaced
> with a single Unicode character (the inequality sign of mathematics)

You can't do that with a #define statement!  So why did you write
a #define statement?

> By pressing the "!" and then (after you have taken your finger away from 
> the "!") the "=" key. The sophisticated software behind your
> programmer's editor translates those two characters into one, in the 
> same way that when you type an accentuated letter you type first
> the accent, THEN the letter. OK?

So, now this magic editor is going to make changes behind my back,
so I can no longer type the old form?  Even when I need to use
it (there are places in, for example, Makefiles that use != and
the meaning has nothing to do with equality).  That's going to make it
very difficult to use it to write documentation on how to convert
old stuff to new stuff, or document how this program that does
the conversion automatically works.

>> Using something that looks like a *question mark* for assignment
>> would be extremely confusing.
> 
> Yes, I agree. But there was no question mark in my post. See above.

There was when it arrived here.  NNTP transport apparently isn't
8-bit safe (and I'm not running a news server on my machines).  I
thought problems like that (in the transport) had died out ten years
ago.

>> Why should we need a C-specific keyboard?
>>
> 
> Because many C programmers do not need the "Paragraph" sign for instance.
> It could be replaced with the... inequality sign!

That certainly does not make up for having to switch keyboards when
they start doing something other than C code, like writing memos
or other stuff usually done on a word processor.

>>> You would still type !=
>>> but you would obtain ? in output in the same way that you type first the
>>> accent, then the later under the accent and you obtain one character.
>>
>> The C language does not define a text editor.
>>
> 
> It implicitly admits that the program text must be somehow
> inputted into a computer system...

I don't like editors that make you re-learn how to type based on
what it is you are editing.  Try, sometime, even if just as a thought
experiment, to imagine how you'd go about writing a report on
spelling errors fixed by a spell checker (and you have to list every
single misspelled word) using a word processor that uses that spell
checker, without globally turning it off.

> Besides, this proposal doesn't define an editor anyway. It would
> propose an optional "enriched" form of programs that would replace
> the digraphs of C with their Unicode equivalents and that would
> reserve the sequences:
> 
> /*{\rtf
> that should be followed by a matching
> }*/
> 
> /*<HTML>
> 
> and
> </HTML>*/
> as the start of a rich text comment that should be displayed
> as rich text if the text processor supports it.

Is there a non-proprietary way for a programming tool (say, indent, or
cproto, or lint, or a compiler) to skip over that crap?  Before
you answer "yes", you have to ensure that the terminating sequences
cannot occur inside the block of special comments.  I'm not so sure
you can count on rtf not containing "}*/", especially given that 
it is likely to contain code examples.

> 
>> You might be right about many editors supporting UTF-8.  How many users
>> know how to use those features?
> 
> I would bet that there isn't a single programmer that has never used a
> word processor. I am sorry but even you have used one.

That does not mean they have ever inserted a character not present on
their keyboard into a document.

>> And how many of those support UTF-8 on
>> a text console?
>>
> 
> BSD is not very advanced in graphics and Unicode support maybe...
> Get a Mac or a PC and use your favorite editor there, using BSD only to 
> run your code.

And how many of those support UTF-8 on a text console on a Mac or Windows PC?

Usually, the files being edited and the console are on different machines.

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

#7488

In article <B8qdnePUoPUXkpLTnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
 gordonb.piror@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:

> >>> We could have in some isoXXX.h
> >>> #define ? !=
> >>> #define ? and
> >>> #define ? or
> >>> #define ?<=
> >>> #define ?>=
> >>
> >> 1.  Who said whatever that character is after #define (that looks
> >> like a question mark) is usable in an identifier?
> > 
> > Nobody said that. 
> 
> Incidentally, I dumped in hex the characters from that article.  As
> I received it, those are *question marks*, not unicode characters.
> And it's not my newsreader doing it, because it wasn't involved in
> refetching it.  

I got a different result with telnet to port 110 
of a news server. 

Here is the relevant part of a hex dump.

0000a00: 2073 6f6d 6520 6973 6f58 5858 2e68 0d0a   some isoXXX.h..
0000a10: 2364 6566 696e 6520 e289 a020 213d 0d0a  #define ... !=..
0000a20: 2364 6566 696e 6520 e28b 8020 616e 640d  #define ... and.
                             ^^^^ ^^

0000a30: 0a23 6465 6669 6e65 20e2 8b81 206f 720d  .#define ... or.
                               ^^^^ ^^

0000a40: 0a23 6465 6669 6e65 20e2 89a4 203c 3d0d  .#define ... <=.
0000a50: 0a23 6465 6669 6e65 20e2 89a5 203e 3d0d  .#define ... >=.

The body of the article is encoded with UTF-8. 

e2       8b        80
11100010 10001011  10000000
    0010   001011    000000
    00100010       11000000
    U+22C0

e2       8b        81
11100010 10001011  10000001 
    U+22C1

U+22C0 and U+22C1 are the wedge and vee signs respectively; /\ and \/.
As a matter of fact, my newsreader also failed to render them.

-- 
Michael Press

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

#7492

On Jul 2, 10:02 am, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
> Le 02/07/11 06:16, Gordon Burditt a écrit :

<snip>

> At the start of the discussion, I was trying to get a modern
> and aesthetically pleasing typography for programs. Why write
> != instead of the inequality sign from mathematics?

I agree it would look more aesthetically pleasing. I used a Pascal
system (Lightning?) on an old Mac (pre-Mac OSS) that displayed things
prettily (much nicer then modern syntax hilighters (or the ones that
I've seen))

> There is no reason.

well there are reasons. And plenty of people have pointed them out.

If we were designing from scratch there would be strong arguments for
using some richer internal representation (XML? ug!) which editors
would then display to the liking and hardware availablity of the user.

But legacy C code is in ASCII and runs on systems that don't support
much more. I know of live systems that compile on old Suns using K&R
C. I made a mod to a K&R program only 12 months ago.

<snip>

> The problem with documentation now, is that it must be written
> outside the program, using a text editor that is in general
> different from the programmer's editor. Obviously, as Ben said, I
> could do thsi in wedit and be done with it, but actually that would be
> a wrong solution since any user of this feature would be tied
> to a single editor: impossible to use another since there
> would be no standard way of editing programs.

invent an XML format for the representation of literate programs?


> > Incidentally,
> > Unicode is well-known for the use of nearly-identical graphics
> > characters to try to get people and web browsers to interpret URLs
> > differently, and to exploit security holes.
>
> Did you know that pointers are used in all exploits done so far?
> Obviously we should ban pointers (and pointer+integer operations).

:-)

I don't think *all* exploits use pointers. Microsoft's executable
format might have caused a few problems.


<snip>


--
Nick Keighley

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

#7587

Nick Keighley ha scritto:
> On Jul 2, 10:02 am, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
>> Le 02/07/11 06:16, Gordon Burditt a écrit :
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> At the start of the discussion, I was trying to get a modern
>> and aesthetically pleasing typography for programs. Why write
>> != instead of the inequality sign from mathematics?
> 
> I agree it would look more aesthetically pleasing. I used a Pascal
> system (Lightning?) on an old Mac (pre-Mac OSS)ù

"lightspeed" methinks. now "symantec".

-- 
La Tunze e' la vera matematica intelligente,
ma proprio per questa sua caratteristica, tende ad essere
esclusa.

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

#7518

On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 09:02:22 UTC, jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> 
wrote:

> Le 02/07/11 06:16, Gordon Burditt a écrit :
> >> Unicode now offers all possible signs for displaying in our programs,
> >
> > How many people can visually distinguish those possible signs from
> > each other?
> >
> >> and it would be a progress if C would standardize some codes to be
> >> used isnstead of the usual != and&&, etc.
> >
> > Why?  What problem are you attempting to solve?
> 
> At the start of the discussion, I was trying to get a modern
> and aesthetically pleasing typography for programs. Why write
> != instead of the inequality sign from mathematics? There is
> no reason.
> 
> But during the discussion, I have learned a bit, and now the
> proposal should be extended:
> 
> o We should be able to format commentary text as in a simple
>    text editor (rtf) that would allow us to write diagrams that
>    explain the code instead of ridiculous Ascii drawings that
>    are extremely difficult to draw and do not pass through
>    reformatters

Simply NO. There are different interpretations of ASCII beside 
something national language differenes. YASCII on DOS or DOS derivates
is different from ASCII on MAC is different from ASCII on unix/linux. 
They are not compatible without transforming line end character(s) 
from one sy<stem to another one.
 
> o We should end the digraphs of C and use the inequality sign
>    (in output) instead of !=, the assignment arrow instead of =,
>    the boolen \/ and /\ for OR and AND instead of || and &&,
>    etc.

NO.
 
> The problem with documentation now, is that it must be written
> outside the program, using a text editor that is in general
> different from the programmer's editor. Obviously, as Ben said, I
> could do thsi in wedit and be done with it, but actually that would be
> a wrong solution since any user of this feature would be tied
> to a single editor: impossible to use another since there
> would be no standard way of editing programs.

I have written 100% of program documentation inside C source 20 years 
ago. Whereas the compiler has nothing seen from than plain C comment 
and the underlying documentation processor has produced well formatted
books as if I had written the documentation in PDF without C code.
 
> > Incidentally,
> > Unicode is well-known for the use of nearly-identical graphics
> > characters to try to get people and web browsers to interpret URLs
> > differently, and to exploit security holes.
> >
> 
> Did you know that pointers are used in all exploits done so far?
> Obviously we should ban pointers (and pointer+integer operations).

Why? Because Jacob naivia is unable to understund how pointer and 
pointer arithmetics works?
 
> > It seems that the *only* standardized way to refer to a character
> > is some wierd construct using a U and a bunch of numbers.
> >
> >> We could have in some isoXXX.h
> >> #define ? !=
> >> #define ? and
> >> #define ? or
> >> #define ?<=
> >> #define ?>=
> >
> > 1.  Who said whatever that character is after #define (that looks
> > like a question mark) is usable in an identifier?
> 
> Nobody said that. The problem with your news reader (tin) is
> that is from february 2007 and kind of outdated, as you can
> see now. Please get a newer version or a version that can
> read/write utf8.

Oh, my newsreader is from 2010 and is setup right for use on my OS 
that is not using US english but german in a way that it is able to 
use use the keyboard layout prepared to use my national language right
without type some of its native charaters as Alt+<some obvious decimal
code> but by typing the key holding the native symbol.

So I can type <>=&%!#/+* like öäüßÖÄÜ and need AltGr only for |\ and ~
instead of the shift caps key. That is much more easy than to remember
Alt+<obvious decimal number> for most of the sybols.
 
> 
>   I don't understand
> > why you would want to use it as (part of) an identifier *and* as a
> > comparison operator?
> >
> 
> I never said that. Please read again. I am proposing that != is replaced
> with a single Unicode character (the inequality sign of mathematics)

You are lying. You says that you would like that anybody has to use 
Alt+<some decimal number> instead of the keys simply defined on theyr 
keyboard.
> 
> > 2.  How do you manage to #define the same character to five different
> > strings?
> >
> 
> As I said before, your news reader displays only the alternative Unicode
> sin (the question mark) since it is unable to display unicode.

That is because the system is using an keyboard with a fixed number of
keys associated with the national assigned glyphes istead lots of not 
really needed symbols and the display encoder is using the same to 
display them.
 
> 
> > 3.  How the heck do I type that character?
> >
> 
> 
> By pressing the "!" and then (after you have taken your finger away from 
> the "!") the "=" key. The sophisticated software behind your
> programmer's editor translates those two characters into one, in the 
> same way that when you type an accentuated letter you type first
> the accent, THEN the letter. OK?

And that produces really not only != but any of the different glyphes 
you have produced? Really?
 
> >> Using ? for assignment would avoid the common beginner's error of using
> >> = instead of == and programs would look less horrible.
> >
> > Using something that looks like a *question mark* for assignment
> > would be extremely confusing.
> 
> Yes, I agree. But there was no question mark in my post. See above.

Yes, but instead of a singe question mark you have used a symbol like 
 ^
 ||
 _

and you means really that this single symbol is a good replace for 
multiple ones?
 
> > Why should we need a C-specific keyboard?
> >
> 
> Because many C programmers do not need the "Paragraph" sign for instance.
> It could be replaced with the... inequality sign!

Ha, I need the § sign when I cdo write my lawayer, and öäüÜÄÖß while 
native german and I don't like to change the keyboard only because I 
have time to edit on C sources.
 

-- 
Tschau/Bye
Herbert

Visit http://www.ecomstation.de the home of german eComStation
eComStation 2.0 ist da!

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

#7523

On Jul 3, 9:39 pm, "Herbert Rosenau" <os2...@pc-rosenau.de> wrote:
<SNIP>
> > o We should be able to format commentary text as in a simple
> >    text editor (rtf) that would allow us to write diagrams that
> >    explain the code instead of ridiculous Ascii drawings that
> >    are extremely difficult to draw and do not pass through
> >    reformatters
>
> Simply NO. There are different interpretations of ASCII beside
> something national language differenes. YASCII on DOS or DOS derivates
> is different from ASCII on MAC is different from ASCII on unix/linux.
> They are not compatible without transforming line end character(s)
> from one sy<stem to another one.

Ummm... End of line conventions are _not_ part of ASCII. ASCII only
defines \r and \n, how various OS's use those is a different kettle of
fish.

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

#7528

"Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> writes:
> On Jul 3, 9:39 pm, "Herbert Rosenau" <os2...@pc-rosenau.de> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>> > o We should be able to format commentary text as in a simple
>> >    text editor (rtf) that would allow us to write diagrams that
>> >    explain the code instead of ridiculous Ascii drawings that
>> >    are extremely difficult to draw and do not pass through
>> >    reformatters
>>
>> Simply NO. There are different interpretations of ASCII beside
>> something national language differenes. YASCII on DOS or DOS derivates
>> is different from ASCII on MAC is different from ASCII on unix/linux.
>> They are not compatible without transforming line end character(s)
>> from one sy<stem to another one.
>
> Ummm... End of line conventions are _not_ part of ASCII. ASCII only
> defines \r and \n, how various OS's use those is a different kettle of
> fish.

ASCII defines CR and LF; \r and \n are C-specific notations (which have
also been picked up by a number of other languages).

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

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

#7580

On Jul 3, 11:26 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 3, 9:39 pm, "Herbert Rosenau" <os2...@pc-rosenau.de> wrote:
> > <SNIP>
> >> > o We should be able to format commentary text as in a simple
> >> >    text editor (rtf) that would allow us to write diagrams that
> >> >    explain the code instead of ridiculous Ascii drawings that
> >> >    are extremely difficult to draw and do not pass through
> >> >    reformatters
>
> >> Simply NO. There are different interpretations of ASCII beside
> >> something national language differenes. YASCII on DOS or DOS derivates
> >> is different from ASCII on MAC is different from ASCII on unix/linux.
> >> They are not compatible without transforming line end character(s)
> >> from one sy<stem to another one.
>
> > Ummm... End of line conventions are _not_ part of ASCII. ASCII only
> > defines \r and \n, how various OS's use those is a different kettle of
> > fish.
>
> ASCII defines CR and LF; \r and \n are C-specific notations (which have
> also been picked up by a number of other languages).

You're right, i used c-notation in a newsgroup dedicated to c and
assumed everybody would get the point. I should not have made that
assumption.

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

#7606

"Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> writes:
> On Jul 3, 11:26 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> writes:
[...]
>> > Ummm... End of line conventions are _not_ part of ASCII. ASCII only
>> > defines \r and \n, how various OS's use those is a different kettle of
>> > fish.
>>
>> ASCII defines CR and LF; \r and \n are C-specific notations (which have
>> also been picked up by a number of other languages).
>
> You're right, i used c-notation in a newsgroup dedicated to c and
> assumed everybody would get the point. I should not have made that
> assumption.

The C notation \n does not *necessarily* refer to the ASCII LF
character.  It's not merely a different notation for the same thing.

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

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

#7558

In article <wmzsGguTDN6N-pn2-42Lb9YwNMBKz@JUPITER.PC-ROSENAU.DE>,
 "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> wrote:

> Ha, I need the § sign when I cdo write my lawayer, and öäüÜÄÖß while 
> native german and I don't like to change the keyboard only because I 
> have time to edit on C sources.

Diacritical marks are for people who do not 
remember how to pronounce their own language.

-- 
Michael Press

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

#7561

On 2011-07-04, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Diacritical marks are for people who do not 
> remember how to pronounce their own language.

Touche. [sic.]

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

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

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

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

csiph-web