Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #107910 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-08 22:59 -0500 |
| Last post | 2017-04-26 11:09 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 187 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
And they say C is obscure Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-08 22:59 -0500
Re: And they say C is obscure Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-04-08 22:17 -0600
Re: And they say C is obscure Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-09 07:42 -0500
Re: And they say C is obscure Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2017-04-09 07:46 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-09 16:47 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-09 14:42 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-09 13:25 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-09 22:56 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-04-09 15:18 -0600
Re: And they say C is obscure Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2017-04-10 12:57 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-10 14:46 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 07:26 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-09 14:18 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 20:53 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-09 13:52 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-14 11:48 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2017-04-14 13:36 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-20 13:24 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-20 08:05 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-20 15:32 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-20 09:48 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-20 18:00 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-20 11:34 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-20 18:41 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-04-09 13:18 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-09 14:03 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-09 22:56 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-10 09:12 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-10 08:22 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-10 18:28 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-10 17:49 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-10 11:50 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-10 20:33 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-10 13:06 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 21:48 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-10 22:15 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-10 18:46 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-10 21:46 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-10 23:09 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-11 12:40 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-11 14:15 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 10:13 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-26 10:38 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-10 15:23 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-14 11:51 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-14 13:14 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-14 10:42 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-14 19:04 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-14 21:43 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 11:02 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 19:05 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-26 12:02 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 21:55 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-27 00:15 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-27 13:23 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 18:12 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-14 18:37 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 00:03 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-04-10 14:10 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2017-04-11 08:41 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-11 08:58 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-04-11 09:06 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-11 16:46 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 19:02 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-14 11:59 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 10:59 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-27 21:40 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-02 05:17 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 12:50 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-05 01:20 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 12:37 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-06 00:16 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 11:49 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 13:16 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 14:10 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-05-06 20:23 -0600
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 21:51 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 05:04 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 05:09 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 05:18 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 05:54 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-07 13:48 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 06:13 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-07 15:10 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-05-07 16:47 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-07 21:08 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-07 21:54 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-08 00:59 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 16:59 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-07 22:28 -0500
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-08 10:16 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 02:41 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 07:36 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 10:06 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-09 14:03 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-05-09 19:41 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-09 21:35 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 20:25 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-10 14:48 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-10 14:23 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-05-10 21:31 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-10 12:45 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-05-10 16:49 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 08:56 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-08 09:54 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 17:32 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-08 18:26 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 02:28 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 10:15 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 05:53 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-09 14:15 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 06:55 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-09 14:43 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-09 23:07 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-10 15:32 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-10 11:39 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 06:21 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-11 03:00 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 18:20 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-10 10:06 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 11:11 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-10 12:45 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 05:33 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-10 13:41 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-05-10 09:32 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-10 14:51 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-05-10 10:54 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-10 17:36 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 09:28 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-10 19:12 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 11:53 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-10 22:19 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 07:36 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 00:39 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-11 13:30 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-11 13:17 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-11 13:37 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-12 10:39 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-13 09:34 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 09:48 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-13 19:48 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 14:01 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 15:23 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 03:14 -0700
[OT] Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-14 12:18 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-14 13:28 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-14 15:56 +0200
Re: [OT] Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-14 16:56 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-14 02:03 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 03:08 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-14 13:44 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-14 16:13 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 08:04 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 08:52 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 09:16 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-14 17:48 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-14 14:11 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-14 22:57 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-14 14:10 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-14 15:51 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-14 14:04 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 07:45 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-11 16:45 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 19:58 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-05-11 22:15 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-11 23:24 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-12 10:50 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-12 09:57 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-05-10 16:31 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 07:50 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-10 09:00 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-11 03:03 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-11 09:02 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-05-12 18:34 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-12 18:47 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-13 09:03 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 10:11 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-09 08:28 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 09:40 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 20:26 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 00:20 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-08 09:01 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 09:15 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-11 09:29 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-04-13 16:00 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-16 19:45 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 11:09 -0700
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
| From | Manfred <noname@invalid.add> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 21:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oevpqd$14kp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #109662 |
On 05/10/2017 02:48 PM, David Brown wrote: > On 09/05/17 22:25, Richard Bos wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>> Latin is not the foundation for Germanic languages, nor the Slavic >>> languages, which are the other two major language groups in Europe. >>> There are many other languages that are significantly different from any >>> of these - whether they are "notable" is, of course de gustibus. >> >> True, but all Indo-European languages are at least somewhat related, and >> learning one extra is always useful for better understanding the others. > > Absolutely - but Indo-European is a step up in the language tree. > Germanic, Romantic, and Slavic languages are all descendent from earlier > common Indo-European languages. (Yes, I know it's not really a tree - > more a web of interconnections.) The point is, Latin is a cousin of > German - it is not the foundation for it. I have to admit I am not an expert in German, but as far as I know even if the /vocabulary/ of German is not widely derived from Latin (although it has its share of it), its /grammar/ is strictly related with the Latin one, even more than Italian in some ways - I'm thinking of its use of declensions for one example.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 12:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln60h88pj5.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #109706 |
Manfred <noname@invalid.add> writes:
[...]
> I have to admit I am not an expert in German, but as far as I know even
> if the /vocabulary/ of German is not widely derived from Latin (although
> it has its share of it), its /grammar/ is strictly related with the
> Latin one, even more than Italian in some ways - I'm thinking of its use
> of declensions for one example.
[Indulging myself in a bit of off-topicality]
I *think* that German and Latin both inherited declensions from a
common ancestor language, Indo-European or perhaps something later.
Both English and Italian have, more or less independently, largely
dropped that feature (taking your word for it on Italian, which I
don't know).
Learning other languages can help you understand your own.
For example, French taught me a lot about how verbs work, and
German taught me a lot about how nouns work. English still has
remnants of the complex verb tenses and noun declensions, but in
a weakened and often implicit form that makes it a bit harder to
see the underlying concepts.
Similar ideas apply to learning other programming languages (making
a vague gesture in the general direction of topicality).
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 16:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <3d9dd2db-755d-fc97-96ae-ae0b7b24f8fd@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #109706 |
On 05/10/2017 03:31 PM, Manfred wrote: > On 05/10/2017 02:48 PM, David Brown wrote: ... >> Absolutely - but Indo-European is a step up in the language tree. >> Germanic, Romantic, and Slavic languages are all descendent from earlier >> common Indo-European languages. (Yes, I know it's not really a tree - >> more a web of interconnections.) The point is, Latin is a cousin of >> German - it is not the foundation for it. > > I have to admit I am not an expert in German, but as far as I know even > if the /vocabulary/ of German is not widely derived from Latin (although > it has its share of it), its /grammar/ is strictly related with the > Latin one, even more than Italian in some ways - I'm thinking of its use > of declensions for one example. I remember reading (I don't remember the exact source) that German used to have a very informal grammar, with few well-defined grammar rules. The first medieval (or earlier?) scholars who attempted to make a formal description of the German grammar were very familiar with Latin grammar, and considered it an ideal to be followed. As a result, they imposed on German a grammar that was substantially more similar to that of Latin than had previously been the case. The were sufficiently influential that this grammar ended up correctly describing the language as it was actually spoken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 08:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <89ec64a5-8939-496c-8f67-5be593bd7f4e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109427 |
On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 2:10:26 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > > No, I believe you have (again) missed the point. The idea of "de > gustibus" is a balance - "In matters of taste, there can be no > disputes". It applies to arguments like emacs vs. vim, or which brace > style is "best" in C, or if you should use underscores or camelCaps in > identifiers. > Many things can be objectively tested, but you need a university psychology department to do it. They'd probably actually quite appreciate the task for little undergraduate projects. under_scores versus camelCaps is a case in point, programmers will likely perform better on some tasks than others dependent on the choice of identifier style. > > This is not "de gustibus" - it's like a crackpot who claims people never > actually went to the moon, and that his opinion that the moon is made of > cheese is equally valid to anyone else's opinion. > The claim is that replacing for loops with while loops leads to code which is easier to read and more maintainable. Unlike the claim that the moon is made of cheese, that's not obviously and objectively falsifiable, though I would assume it is incorrect in the absence of information to the contrary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 09:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn60hbuw57.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #109432 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 2:10:26 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > >> No, I believe you have (again) missed the point. The idea of "de >> gustibus" is a balance - "In matters of taste, there can be no >> disputes". It applies to arguments like emacs vs. vim, or which brace >> style is "best" in C, or if you should use underscores or camelCaps in >> identifiers. > > Many things can be objectively tested, but you need a university > psychology department to do it. [...] This statement displays an attitude that IMCO is totally wrongheaded. In particular it implicitly suggests a false dichotomy: either conduct perfect experiments, or conduct no experiments at all. For starters there is no such thing as a perfect experiment, but even allowing that some are much better than others, second- or third-rate experiments still yield /some/ information, and that information may be enough to draw a useful conclusion. The alternative, performing no experiments, yields zero information. This path gives rise to the "it's just personal preference" attitude, a lame excuse if ever there was one. No weight should be given to the opinions of people who don't make an effort to inform their opinion with factual evidence. Five hundred years of experience has demonstrated the efficacy of empirical observation and the scientific method. No experiment is perfect. Even a poor experiment is better than no experiment at all. Do the best experiments you can, and encourage others to do likewise. Let's break the cycle of endless heated debates that cannot be resolved, by virtue of resting on the pathetic foundation that "it's just my (wilfully uninformed) opinion".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 17:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a0c429a1-7dc4-4a67-906d-6d0ec423604f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109515 |
On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 5:54:36 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 2:10:26 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > > > >> No, I believe you have (again) missed the point. The idea of "de > >> gustibus" is a balance - "In matters of taste, there can be no > >> disputes". It applies to arguments like emacs vs. vim, or which brace > >> style is "best" in C, or if you should use underscores or camelCaps in > >> identifiers. > > > > Many things can be objectively tested, but you need a university > > psychology department to do it. [...] > > This statement displays an attitude that IMCO is totally > wrongheaded. In particular it implicitly suggests a false > dichotomy: either conduct perfect experiments, or conduct > no experiments at all. For starters there is no such thing > as a perfect experiment, but even allowing that some are > much better than others, second- or third-rate experiments > still yield /some/ information, and that information may be > enough to draw a useful conclusion. The alternative, > performing no experiments, yields zero information. This > path gives rise to the "it's just personal preference" > attitude, a lame excuse if ever there was one. No weight > should be given to the opinions of people who don't make > an effort to inform their opinion with factual evidence. > > Five hundred years of experience has demonstrated the > efficacy of empirical observation and the scientific method. > No experiment is perfect. Even a poor experiment is better > than no experiment at all. Do the best experiments you can, > and encourage others to do likewise. Let's break the cycle > of endless heated debates that cannot be resolved, by virtue > of resting on the pathetic foundation that "it's just my > (wilfully uninformed) opinion". > You can set yourself up as an amateur psychologist if you want. But you're likely to make all of the common mistakes such as not hiding the purpose of the experiment from the subjects and thus getting what subjects think you want rather than the true results. Having said that, yes someone can claim something absurd, such as that trigraphs are desirable. However you tend to find that even where a claim is supported by theory (my "rule of three") enough people dispute it to represent more than a few eccentrics, without doing the experiments, of course. of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 18:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnk25qakhg.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #109558 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> Having said that, yes someone can claim something absurd,
> such as that trigraphs are desirable. However you tend to
> find that even where a claim is supported by theory (my "rule
> of three") enough people dispute it to represent more than
> a few eccentrics, without doing the experiments, of course.
Your "rule of three" is supported by theory? Please elaborate.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 02:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <663ae26d-561e-491b-8c89-92f3d02111f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109561 |
On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 2:26:43 AM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > [...] > > Having said that, yes someone can claim something absurd, > > such as that trigraphs are desirable. However you tend to > > find that even where a claim is supported by theory (my "rule > > of three") enough people dispute it to represent more than > > a few eccentrics, without doing the experiments, of course. > > Your "rule of three" is supported by theory? Please elaborate. > I've explained it before. Essentially dimensions in space, levels of pointer dereferencing, and levels of nesting are the same thing in different guises or forms of notation. And we live in a world with three dimensions of space, we can visualise three.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 10:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <591195ea.1315343@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #109568 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 2:26:43 AM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
> > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> > [...]
> > > Having said that, yes someone can claim something absurd,
> > > such as that trigraphs are desirable. However you tend to
> > > find that even where a claim is supported by theory (my "rule
> > > of three") enough people dispute it to represent more than
> > > a few eccentrics, without doing the experiments, of course.
> >
> > Your "rule of three" is supported by theory? Please elaborate.
> >
> I've explained it before.
>
> Essentially dimensions in space, levels of pointer dereferencing, and levels
> of nesting are the same thing in different guises or forms of notation.
> And we live in a world with three dimensions of space, we can visualise
> three.
As wossname used to say: that's not right - that's not even wrong.
You might as well say that we have three colour detectors in our eyes
because there are three dimensions in space, and since 1+2 == 3, there
are 1 + 2*3 == 7 colours in the spectrum, and therefore we humans are
capable of seeing seven levels of indirection just as we see seven
colours.
It's not a theory ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means
what you think it means"), it's pseudo-scientific, mystical waffling.
Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 05:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb7ad1ee-a2ab-4b51-ab31-94f899e450bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109573 |
On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 11:16:19 AM UTC+1, Richard Bos wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Essentially dimensions in space, levels of pointer dereferencing, and levels
> > of nesting are the same thing in different guises or forms of notation.
> > And we live in a world with three dimensions of space, we can visualise
> > three.
>
> As wossname used to say: that's not right - that's not even wrong.
>
> You might as well say that we have three colour detectors in our eyes
> because there are three dimensions in space, and since 1+2 == 3, there
> are 1 + 2*3 == 7 colours in the spectrum, and therefore we humans are
> capable of seeing seven levels of indirection just as we see seven
> colours.
> It's not a theory ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means
> what you think it means"), it's pseudo-scientific, mystical waffling.
>
We can represent three dimensions as
int cube[WIDTH][HEIGHT][DEPTH];
and most people won't have much problem creating a mental map of where
the data resides in that structure.
Now this is intimately tied to
int ***cube_ptr;
and also to levels of nesting.
Nothing mystical about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 14:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <OhjQA.383215$c73.204330@fx06.am4> |
| In reply to | #109580 |
On 09/05/2017 13:53, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 11:16:19 AM UTC+1, Richard Bos wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Essentially dimensions in space, levels of pointer dereferencing, and levels
>>> of nesting are the same thing in different guises or forms of notation.
>>> And we live in a world with three dimensions of space, we can visualise
>>> three.
>>
>> As wossname used to say: that's not right - that's not even wrong.
>>
>> You might as well say that we have three colour detectors in our eyes
>> because there are three dimensions in space, and since 1+2 == 3, there
>> are 1 + 2*3 == 7 colours in the spectrum, and therefore we humans are
>> capable of seeing seven levels of indirection just as we see seven
>> colours.
>> It's not a theory ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means
>> what you think it means"), it's pseudo-scientific, mystical waffling.
>>
> We can represent three dimensions as
>
> int cube[WIDTH][HEIGHT][DEPTH];
>
> and most people won't have much problem creating a mental map of where
> the data resides in that structure.
>
> Now this is intimately tied to
>
> int ***cube_ptr;
>
> and also to levels of nesting.
>
> Nothing mystical about it.
How about the address and location of a person:
population[country][county][city][street][number][flat]
[room][surname][name]
9 dimensions. Didn't someone once give a similar example involving a
book in a library? Something like:
allbooks[country][county][city][street][number][room]
[bookcase][shelf][numberalongshelf][page][line]
[word][letter]
13 levels. Both easy to visualise.
--
bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 06:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <71924fb2-cea5-4aee-b9f3-155192448a68@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109581 |
On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 2:15:36 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote:
> On 09/05/2017 13:53, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 11:16:19 AM UTC+1, Richard Bos wrote:
> >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Essentially dimensions in space, levels of pointer dereferencing, and levels
> >>> of nesting are the same thing in different guises or forms of notation.
> >>> And we live in a world with three dimensions of space, we can visualise
> >>> three.
> >>
> >> As wossname used to say: that's not right - that's not even wrong.
> >>
> >> You might as well say that we have three colour detectors in our eyes
> >> because there are three dimensions in space, and since 1+2 == 3, there
> >> are 1 + 2*3 == 7 colours in the spectrum, and therefore we humans are
> >> capable of seeing seven levels of indirection just as we see seven
> >> colours.
> >> It's not a theory ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means
> >> what you think it means"), it's pseudo-scientific, mystical waffling.
> >>
> > We can represent three dimensions as
> >
> > int cube[WIDTH][HEIGHT][DEPTH];
> >
> > and most people won't have much problem creating a mental map of where
> > the data resides in that structure.
> >
> > Now this is intimately tied to
> >
> > int ***cube_ptr;
> >
> > and also to levels of nesting.
> >
> > Nothing mystical about it.
>
> How about the address and location of a person:
>
> population[country][county][city][street][number][flat]
> [room][surname][name]
>
> 9 dimensions. Didn't someone once give a similar example involving a
> book in a library? Something like:
>
> allbooks[country][county][city][street][number][room]
> [bookcase][shelf][numberalongshelf][page][line]
> [word][letter]
>
> 13 levels. Both easy to visualise.
>
Yes, that's true.
If we can name the levels, it becomes much easier.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 14:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87d1bib0xf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #109580 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 11:16:19 AM UTC+1, Richard Bos wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Essentially dimensions in space, levels of pointer dereferencing, and levels
>> > of nesting are the same thing in different guises or forms of notation.
>> > And we live in a world with three dimensions of space, we can visualise
>> > three.
>>
>> As wossname used to say: that's not right - that's not even wrong.
>>
>> You might as well say that we have three colour detectors in our eyes
>> because there are three dimensions in space, and since 1+2 == 3, there
>> are 1 + 2*3 == 7 colours in the spectrum, and therefore we humans are
>> capable of seeing seven levels of indirection just as we see seven
>> colours.
>> It's not a theory ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means
>> what you think it means"), it's pseudo-scientific, mystical waffling.
>>
> We can represent three dimensions as
>
> int cube[WIDTH][HEIGHT][DEPTH];
>
> and most people won't have much problem creating a mental map of where
> the data resides in that structure.
And you can't cope with a set of these data collected on different dates:
int cubes[DAY][W][H][D];
? (I have no trouble with that, but we've already established that I am
extraordinary because I can read and write Lisp.)
> Now this is intimately tied to
>
> int ***cube_ptr;
>
> and also to levels of nesting.
>
> Nothing mystical about it.
Until you can point to some quality evidence it's as good a mystical.
It's just a personal option you keep banning on about.
(float)(sqrt(fabs(point[x][y][z])))
Six levels of nesting (since you choose to equate array dimensions with
nesting) and yet I'm not really bothered by it.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 23:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oeteci$s9f$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109585 |
On 09/05/17 14:43, Ben Bacarisse wrote: <snip> > And you can't cope with a set of these data collected on different dates: > > int cubes[DAY][W][H][D]; > > ? (I have no trouble with that, but we've already established that I am > extraordinary because I can read and write Lisp.) I have no trouble with that either, and I can't even /say/ Lithp. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 15:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oev4im$d68$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109637 |
On 10/05/17 00:07, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 09/05/17 14:43, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > <snip> > >> And you can't cope with a set of these data collected on different dates: >> >> int cubes[DAY][W][H][D]; >> >> ? (I have no trouble with that, but we've already established that I am >> extraordinary because I can read and write Lisp.) > > I have no trouble with that either, and I can't even /say/ Lithp. > Try the same voice you use when reading about Igors. (And you can use Death's voice when discussing COBOL...)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 11:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5912fbd6.6378859@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #109580 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 11:16:19 AM UTC+1, Richard Bos wrote:
> > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Essentially dimensions in space, levels of pointer dereferencing, and levels
> > > of nesting are the same thing in different guises or forms of notation.
> > > And we live in a world with three dimensions of space, we can visualise
> > > three.
> >
> > As wossname used to say: that's not right - that's not even wrong.
> >
> > You might as well say that we have three colour detectors in our eyes
> > because there are three dimensions in space, and since 1+2 == 3, there
> > are 1 + 2*3 == 7 colours in the spectrum, and therefore we humans are
> > capable of seeing seven levels of indirection just as we see seven
> > colours.
> > It's not a theory ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means
> > what you think it means"), it's pseudo-scientific, mystical waffling.
> >
> We can represent three dimensions as
Adding more circumlocution and handwaving only makes your argument more
mystical, not more scientific.
Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mark.bluemel@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 06:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <61bdb914-1bcc-40c3-a9de-59ff7bb5ed5b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109573 |
On Tuesday, 9 May 2017 11:16:19 UTC+1, Richard Bos wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 2:26:43 AM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
> > > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> > > [...]
> > > > Having said that, yes someone can claim something absurd,
> > > > such as that trigraphs are desirable. However you tend to
> > > > find that even where a claim is supported by theory (my "rule
> > > > of three") enough people dispute it to represent more than
> > > > a few eccentrics, without doing the experiments, of course.
> > >
> > > Your "rule of three" is supported by theory? Please elaborate.
> > >
> > I've explained it before.
> >
> > Essentially dimensions in space, levels of pointer dereferencing, and levels
> > of nesting are the same thing in different guises or forms of notation.
> > And we live in a world with three dimensions of space, we can visualise
> > three.
>
> As wossname used to say: that's not right - that's not even wrong.
>
> You might as well say that we have three colour detectors in our eyes
> because there are three dimensions in space, and since 1+2 == 3, there
> are 1 + 2*3 == 7 colours in the spectrum, and therefore we humans are
> capable of seeing seven levels of indirection just as we see seven
> colours.
> It's not a theory ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means
> what you think it means"), it's pseudo-scientific, mystical waffling.
"Inconceivable"
Inigo Montoya
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-11 03:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnbmqzu30o.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #109573 |
raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 2:26:43 AM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>> [...]
>>>> Having said that, yes someone can claim something absurd,
>>>> such as that trigraphs are desirable. However you tend to
>>>> find that even where a claim is supported by theory (my "rule
>>>> of three") enough people dispute it to represent more than
>>>> a few eccentrics, without doing the experiments, of course.
>>>
>>> Your "rule of three" is supported by theory? Please elaborate.
>>
>> I've explained it before.
>>
>> Essentially dimensions in space, levels of pointer dereferencing,
>> and levels of nesting are the same thing in different guises or
>> forms of notation. And we live in a world with three dimensions
>> of space, we can visualise three.
>
> As wossname used to say: that's not right - that's not even wrong.
>
> [...]
> It's not a theory ("You keep using that word. I do not think it
> means what you think it means"), it's pseudo-scientific, mystical
> waffling.
Faciunt nae intelligendo, ut nihil intelligant
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 18:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87a86mdk0f.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #109568 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >> Your "rule of three" is supported by theory? Please elaborate. >> > I've explained it before. > > Essentially dimensions in space, levels of pointer dereferencing, and levels > of nesting are the same thing in different guises or forms of notation. > And we live in a world with three dimensions of space, we can visualise > three. "Being explained by theory" is not synonymous with "Being explained by a theory"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 10:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lna86k8wv7.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #109561 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> [...]
>> Having said that, yes someone can claim something absurd,
>> such as that trigraphs are desirable. However you tend to
>> find that even where a claim is supported by theory (my "rule
>> of three") enough people dispute it to represent more than
>> a few eccentrics, without doing the experiments, of course.
>
> Your "rule of three" is supported by theory? Please elaborate.
I apologize to the group for the above post.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web